Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# [meta] New LW moderator: Viliam_Bur

Some time back, [I wrote that](/lw/krw/meta_future_moderation_and_investigation_of/) I was unwilling to continue with investigations into mass downvoting, and asked people for suggestions on how to deal with them from now on. The [top-voted proposal in that thread](/lw/krw/meta_future_moderation_and_investigation_of/b8ef) suggested making Viliam_Bur into a moderator, and [Viliam gracefully accepted the nomination](/lw/krw/meta_future_moderation_and_investigation_of/b8g0). So I have given him moderator privileges and also put him in contact with jackk, who provided me with the information necessary to deal with the previous cases. Future requests about mass downvote investigations should be directed to Viliam.

Thanks a lot for agreeing to take up this responsibility, Viliam! It's not an easy one, but I'm very grateful that you're willing to do it. Please post a comment here so that we can reward you with some extra upvotes. :)
# What are your contrarian views?

As per [a recent comment](/r/discussion/lw/kzf/should_people_be_writing_more_or_fewer_lw_posts/bbhg) this thread is meant to voice contrarian opinions, that is anything this community tends not to agree with. Thus I ask you to post your contrarian views and upvote anything you do **not** agree with based on personal beliefs. Spam and trolling still needs to be downvoted.
# What are you learning?

This is a thread to connect rationalists who are learning the same thing, so they can cooperate.

The "learning" doesn't necessarily mean "I am reading a textbook / learning an online course right now". It can be something you are interested in long-term, and still want to learn more.

Rules:

Top-level comments contain only the topic to learn. (Plus one comment for "meta" debate.) Only one topic per comment, for easier search. Try to find a reasonable level of specificity: too narrow topic means less people; too wide topic means more people who actually are interested in something different than you are.

Use the second-level comments if you are learning that topic. (Or if you are going to learn it now, not merely in the far future.) Technically, "me too" is okay in this thread, but providing more info is probably more useful. For example: What are you focusing on? What learning materials you use? What is your goal?

Third- and deeper-level comments, that's debate as usual.
# Everybody's talking about machine ethics

There is a lot of mainstream interest in machine ethics now. Here are some links to some popular articles on this topic.

By Zeynep Tufecki, a professor at the I School at UNC, on [Facebook's algorithmic newsfeed curation](https://medium.com/message/ferguson-is-also-a-net-neutrality-issue-6d2f3db51eb0) and why Twitter [should not implement the same](https://medium.com/message/the-algorithm-giveth-but-it-also-taketh-b7efad92bc1f).

By danah boyd, [claiming](https://medium.com/message/what-is-fairness-73940071840) that 'tech folks' are designing systems that implement an idea of fairness that comes from neoliberal ideology.

danah boyd (who spells her name with no capitalization) runs the [Data & Society](http://www.datasociety.net/), a "think/do tank" that aims to study this stuff. They've recently gotten [MacArthur Foundation funding](http://www.datasociety.net/updates/featured/announcements/2014/09/macarthur-foundation-supports-two-year-data-society-initiative-around-intelligent-systems/) for studying the ethical and political impact of intelligent systems. 

A few observations:

First, there is no mention of superintelligence or recursively self-modifying anything. These scholars are interested in how, in the near future, the already comparatively powerful machines have moral and political impact on the world.

Second, these groups are quite bad at thinking in a formal or mechanically implementable way about ethics. They mainly seem to recapitulate the same tired tropes that have been resonating through academia for literally decades. On the contrary, mathematical formulation of ethical positions appears to be ya'll's specialty.

Third, however much the one-true-morality may be indeterminate or presently unknowable, progress towards implementable descriptions of various plausible moral positions could at least be incremental steps forward towards an understanding of how to achieve something better. Considering a slow take-off possible future, iterative testing and design of ethical machines with high computational power seems like low-hanging fruit that could only better inform longer-term futurist thought.

Personally, I try to do work in this area and find the lack of serious formal work in this area deeply disappointing. This post is a combination heads up and request to step up your game. It's go time.

Sebastian Benthall

PhD Candidate

UC Berkeley School of Infromation
# Petrov Day is September 26

On September 26th, 1983, the world was nearly destroyed by nuclear war. That day is Petrov Day, named for the man who averted it. Petrov Day is now a yearly event on September 26 commemorating the anniversary of the Petrov incident. Last year, Citadel, the Boston-area rationalist house, performed a ritual on Petrov day. We will be doing it again - and have published a revised version, for anyone else who wants to have a Petrov Day celebration themselves.

The purpose of the ritual is to make catastrophic and existential risk emotionally salient, by putting it into historical context and providing positive and negative examples of how it has been handled. This is not for the faint of heart and not for the uninitiated; it is aimed at those who already know what catastrophic and existential risk is, have some background knowledge of what those risks are, and believe (at least on an abstract level) that preventing those risks from coming to pass is important.

Petrov Day is designed for groups of 5-10 people, and consists of a series of readings and symbolic actions which people take turns doing. It is easy to organize; you'll need a few simple props (candles and a candle-holder) and a printout of the program for each person, but other than that no preparation is necessary.

[Organizer guide and program (for one-sided printing)](http://petrovday.com/downloads/PetrovDay-OrganizerGuide.pdf) (PDF)  
[Program for two-sided print and fold](http://petrovday.com/downloads/PetrovDay-DoubleSidedBooklet.pdf) (PDF)

There will be a Petrov Day ritual hosted at Citadel (Boston area) and at Highgarden (New York area). If you live somewhere else, consider running one yourself!
# Books on consciousness?

Does LW have a consensus on which books are worthwhile to read regarding consciousness? I read a small intro (Consciousness: A Very Short Introduction, Susan Blackmore, Oxford University Press), and the summary seems to be "Consciousness is pretty damn weird and no one seems to have much of a handle on it". As a non-technical layman, are there any useful books for me to read on the subject?

(I have started reading Daniel Dennet's _Intuition Pumps_, and I'm a bit torn. He seems highly respected by good scientists, but I feel that if the book didn't have his name on it, I would be well on my way to dismissing it. Are Dennet's earlier works on consciousness a good read?)
# Simulation argument meets decision theory

Person X stands in front of a sophisticated computer playing the decision game Y which allows for the following options: either press the button "sim" or "not sim". If she presses "sim", the computer will simulate X\*\_1, X\*\_2, ..., X\*\_1000 which are a thousand identical copies of X. All of them will face the game Y\* which - from the standpoint of each X* - is indistinguishable from Y. But the simulated computers in the games Y* don't run simulations. Additionally, we know that if X presses "sim" she receives a utility of 1, but "not sim" would only lead to 0.9. If X*\_i (for i=1,2,3..1000)  presses "sim" she receives 0.2, with "not sim" 0.1. For each agent it is true that she does not gain anything from the utility of another agent despite the fact she and the other agents are identical! Since all the agents are identical egoists facing the apparently same situation, all of them will take the same action.  

Now the game starts. We face a computer and know all the above. We don't know whether we are X or any of the X*'s, should we now press "sim" or "not sim"?

EDIT: It seems to me that "identical" agents with "independent" utility functions were a clumsy set up for the above question, especially since one can interpret it as a contradiction. Hence, it might be better to switch to identical egoists whereas each agent only cares about her receiving money (linear monetary value function). If X presses "sim" she will be given 10$ (else 9$) in the end of the game; each X* who presses "sim" receives 2$ (else 1$), respectively. Each agent in the game wants to maximize the expected monetary value they themselves will hold in their own hand after the game. So, intrinsically, they don't care how much money the other copies make.   
To spice things up: What if the simulation will only happen a year later? Are we then able to "choose" which year it is?
# What's the right way to think about how much to give to charity?

I'd like to hear from people about a process they use to decide how much to give to charity. Personally, I have very high income, and while we donate significant money in absolute terms, in relative terms the amount is <1% of our post-tax income. It seems to me that it's too little, but I have no moral intuition as to what the right amount is.

I have a good intuition on how to allocate the money, so that's not a problem.

Background: I have a wife and two kids, one with significant health issues (i.e. medical bills - possibly for life), most money we spend goes to private school tuition x 2, the above mentioned medical bills, mortgage, and miscellaneous life expenses. And we max out retirement savings.

If you have some sort of quantitative system where you figure out how much to spend on charity, please share. If you just use vague feelings, and you think there can be no reasonable quantitative system, please tell me that as well.

Update: as suggested in the comments, I'll make it more explicit: please also share how you determine how much to give.
# Assessing oneself

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this, but I'm kind of trying to find a turning point in my life.

I've been told repeatedly that I have a talent for math, or science (by qualified people). And I seem to be intelligent enough to understand large parts of math and physics. But I don't know if I'm intelligent enough to make a meaningful contribution to math or physics.

Lately I've been particularly sad, since my score on the quantitative general GRE, and potentially, the Math subject test aren't "outstanding". They are certainly okay (official 78 percentile, unofficial 68 percentile respectively). But that is "barely qualified" for a top 50 math program.

Given that I think these scores are likely correlated with my IQ (they seem to roughly predict my GPA so far 3.5, math and physics major), I worry that I'm getting clues that maybe I should "give up".

This would be painful for me to accept if true, I care very deeply about inference and nature. It would be nice if I could have a job in this, but the standard career path seems to be telling me "maybe?"

When do you throw in the towel? How do you measure your own intelligence? I've already "given up" once before and tried programming, but the average actual problem was too easy relative to the intellectual work (memorizing technical fluuf). And other engineering disciplines seem similar. Is there a compromise somewhere, or do I just need to grow up?

classes:

For what it's worth, the classes I've taken include Real and Complex Analysis, Algebra, Differential geometry, Quantum Mechanics, Mechanics, and others. And most of my GPA is burned by Algebra and 3rd term Quantum specifically. But part of my worry, is that somebody who is going to do well, would never get burned by courses like this. But I'm not really sure. It seems like one should fail sometimes, but rarely standard assessments.

Edit:

Thank you all for your thoughts, you are a very warm community. I'll give more specific thoughts tomorrow. For what it's worth, I'll be 24 next month.

Double Edit:

Thank you all for your thoughts and suggestions. I think I will tentatively work towards an applied Mathematics PHD. It isn't so important that the school you get into is in the top ten, and there will be lots of opportunities to work on a variety of interesting important problems (throughout my life). Plus, after the PHD, transitioning into industry can be reasonably easy. It seems to make a fair bit of sense given my interests, background, and ability.
# The Future of Humanity Institute could make use of your money

Many people have an incorrect view of the [Future of Humanity Institute](http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/)'s [funding situation](http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/support-fhi/), so this is a brief note to correct that; think of it as a spiritual successor to [this post](/lw/faa/room_for_more_funding_at_the_future_of_humanity/). As John Maxwell puts it, FHI is "one of the three organizations co-sponsoring LW \[and\] a group within the University of Oxford's philosophy department that tackles important, large-scale problems for humanity like how to go about reducing existential risk." (If you're not familiar with our work, [this article](http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/ross-andersen-human-extinction/) is a nice, readable introduction, and our director, Nick Bostrom, wrote [_Superintelligence_](http://www.amazon.com/Superintelligence-Dangers-Strategies-Nick-Bostrom/dp/0199678111/).) Though we are a research institute in an ancient and venerable institution, this does not guarantee funding or long-term stability.

Academic research is generally funded through grants, but because the FHI is researching important but unusual problems, and because this research is multi-disciplinary, we've found it difficult to attract funding from the usual grant bodies. This has meant that we’ve had to prioritise a certain number of projects that are not perfect for existential risk reduction, but that allow us to attract funding from interested institutions.

  

With more assets, we could both liberate our long-term researchers to do more "pure Xrisk" research, and hire or commission new experts when needed to look into particular issues (such as synthetic biology, the future of politics, and the likelihood of recovery after a civilization collapse).

  

We are not in any immediate funding crunch, nor are we arguing that the FHI would be a better donation target than MIRI, CSER, or the FLI. But any donations would be both gratefully received and put to effective use. If you'd like to, you can [donate to FHI here](http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/support-fhi/). Thank you!
# Upcoming CFAR events: Lower-cost bay area intro workshop; EU workshops; and others

For anyone who's interested:

[CFAR](http://rationality.org/) is trying out an experimental, **lower-cost, 1.5-day introductory workshop [Oct 25-26](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/a-taste-of-applied-rationality-tickets-12944727027) in the bay area**.  It is meant to provide an easier point of entry into our rationality training.  If you've been thinking about coming to a CFAR workshop but have had trouble setting aside 4 days and $3900, you might consider trying this out.  (Or, if you have a friend or family member in that situaiton, you might suggest this to them.)  It's a beta test, so no guarantees as to the outcome -- but I suspect it'll be both useful, and a lot of fun.

We are also finally making it to **Europe**.  We'll be running two [workshops](http://rationality.org/workshops/) in the UK this November, both of which have both space and financial aid still available.

We're also still running our [standard](http://rationality.org/workshops/) **workshops**: Jan 16-19 in Berkeley, and April 23-26 in Boston, MA.  (We're experimenting, also, with using alumni "TA's" to increase the amount of 1-on-1 informal instruction while simultaneously increasing workshop size, in an effort to scale our impact.)

Finally, we're actually running a bunch of events lately for alumni of our 4-day workshops (a weekly rationality **dojo**; a bimonthly colloquium; a yearly alumni reunion; and various for-alumni workshops); which is perhaps less exciting if you aren't yet an alumnus, but which I'm very excited about because it suggests that we'll have a larger community of people doing serious practice, and thereby pushing the boundaries of the art of rationality.

If anyone wishes to discuss any of these events, or CFAR's strategy as a whole, I'd be glad to talk; you can book me [here](http://rationality.org/talk/anna/).

Cheers!
# Introducing Effective Altruist Profiles

We’re excited to announce [EA Profiles](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/user/profiles), a new community platform for effective altruists. There are already hundreds of profiles for you to browse from members of the community such as Peter Singer and Jeff Kaufman, full of interesting information like people’s favoured causes and charities, and the actions they’re taking to make the world a better place. And you can [create your own right now](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/user/register)!

The Profiles should serve as a virtual “Who’s Who” of EA - a place to see information about those who identify with effective altruism, and share what we’re doing to inspire and motivate others. They enable applications such as a [map of EAs](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/map) and a [cause-neutral registry of past and planned donations](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/donations), which we'll cover in a separate announcement. 

[![Individual members of the effective altruist community](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/sites/effectivealtruismhub.com/media/images/specific-pages/eaprofiles-mosaic.jpg)](http://effectivealtruismhub.com/user/profiles)

Your EA Profile provides a natural, standard way to share your identification with the ideas of effective altruism and the ways in which you and people you know can do enormous amounts of good, from spreading these ideas to donating to highly efficient charities. We know that people can be slow or cautious about sharing this, but for [familiar reasons](/ea/7q/to_inspire_people_to_give_be_public_about_your/) think that doing so is highly valuable, spreading and normalising a focus on effectiveness and high impact donations. And making a Profile is a great excuse to do so: you’re sharing this information because we asked for it! You can then point people to it, potentially triggering interesting conversations with friends who might like to hear about the ways they can do the most good.

Many of the Profiles come from answers which people opted to make public in the first [annual survey of effective altruists](http://survey.effectivealtruismhub.com/) this year (still open if you haven’t taken it yet - it provides another way to create a full or partial Profile). Peter Hurford is currently working on analysing the survey results and will share them and the raw data from the survey soon, but for now the EA Profiles provide some of the most interesting results: public information on the inspiring actions that individuals are taking.

If you’re interested in building up this project, or working on other similar projects, consider looking into [.impact](http://www.dotimpact.im), a coordinated volunteer force working on potentially high-impact projects like this one.
# [Link] Animated Video - The Useful Idea of Truth (Part 1/3)

I have taken [this well received post](/lw/eqn/the_useful_idea_of_truth/) by Eliezer, and remade the first third of it into a short and quickly paced youtube video here: http://youtu.be/L2dNANRIALs

The goals of this post are re-introducing the lessons explored in the original (for anyone not yet familiar with them), as well as asking the question of whether this format is actually suited for the lessons LessWrong tries to teach. What are your thoughts?
# Contrarian LW views and their economic implications

LW readers have unusual views on many subjects. Efficient Market Hypothesis notwithstanding, many of these are probably alien to most people in finance. So it's plausible they might have implications that are not yet fully integrated into current asset prices. And if you rightfully believe something that most people do not believe, you should be able to make money off that.

Here's an example for a different group. Feminists believe that women are paid less than men for no good economic reason. If this is the case, feminists should invest in companies that hire many women, and short those which hire few women, to take advantage of the cheaper labour costs. And I can think of examples for groups like Socialists, Neoreactionaries, etc. - cases where their _positive_ beliefs have strong implications for economic predictions. But I struggle to think of such ones for LessWrong, which is why I am asking you. Can you think of any unusual LW-type beliefs that have strong economic implications (say over the next 1-3 years)?

Wei Dai has previously commented on a [similar phenomena](/lw/kk5/look_for_the_next_tech_gold_rush/), but I'm interested in a wider class of phenomena.
# 3-day Solstice in Leipzig, Germany: small, nice, very low cost, includes accommodation, 19th-21st Dec

Hi everyone,

like last year, we'll have a Secular Solstice in Leipzig, Germany. You're invited - message me if you'd like to attend.

We have space for about 25 people. So this isn't a huge event like you'd have in NYC - but it is special in a different way, because it goes Friday to Sunday and involves lots of things to do. We have a big and very nice appartment in the center of Leipzig where lots of people can sleep, so spreading this over several days is easy, and an obvious way to kick it up a notch from last year's event.

We'll do some of the beautiful ceremonial pieces and songs from Raymonds Hymnal and ride the same general vide. And on top of that, we'll do freestyle, participatory work in groups where we design ways to celebrate the Solstice, using an [Open Space Technology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology) inspired method. After all, we're only getting things started, and surely there are many kinds of celebration to explore. Lets find some of them, try them out together and by comparing effects, help optimize Secular Solstices!

We'll cook together and share the cost for ingredients and drinks - apart from that the event is free. Up to 18 guests can sleep right on the premises - half of them on comfortable beds and mattresses, the rest needs to bring sleeping bags and camping mats. If you really prefer a single or double room, there are fairly cheap hotels and hostels nearby, message me for assistance if necessary.

### The outline  

Arrivals are Friday 6pm-7:30. We'll have a welcome round and a few things to get us in the mood, then discuss ideas for Solstice activities to explore together. We'll find the most popular ones and get into groups that design them into something they want to share with everyone. Groups should self-organize fairly fluidly, i.e. you can switch groups, steal ideas from each other etc. and get to know each other in the process. So this will basically be a very social evening of preparation for the next day. Also, cooking.

On Saturday we will meet in the morning to plan the day, spend some time decorating and cooking, shopping for stuff groups have found they need to do their things, and probably rehearsing. Groups who are done preparing their thing will in some cases probably prepare another, because that is just what happens. We'll have time to chat and get to know each other better. The ceremonial part starts at sunset and is expected to take several hours. After that we'll party - some people will probably want to stay up all night and welcome the sunrise just like last year.

On Sunday we'll have less cohesion probably, because of high variance in how much people have slept. Still we should be able to come together for feedback discussion, have a nice closing, clean up a bit, and say farewell. If you need more sleep before you get on the road, you're welcome to have it.

Any questions?
# Cryonics in Europe?

What are the best options for cryonics in Europe?

AFAIK the best option is still to use one of the US providers(e.g. Alcor) and arrange for transportation. There is a problem with this though, in that until you arrive in the US your body will be cooled with dry ice which will cause huge ischemic damage.

Questions:

1.  How critical is the ischemic damage? If I interpret this [comment](/lw/bk6/alcor_vs_cryonics_institute/6dow) by Eliezer correctly we shouldn't worry about this damage if we consider future technology.
2.  Is there a way to have adequate cooling here in Europe until you arrive at the US for final storage?

  

There is also [KrioRus](http://kriorus.ru/en), a Russian cryonics company, they seem to offer an option of [cryo transportation](http://kriorus.ru/en/Other-services) but I don't know how trustworthy they are.
# 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey - Call For Critiques/Questions

It's that time of year again. Actually, a little earlier than that time of year, but I'm pushing it ahead a little to match when Ozy and I expect to have more free time to process the results.  
  
The first draft of the 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey is complete (see 2013 results [here](/lw/jj0/2013_survey_results/)) .  
  
You can see the survey below if you _promise not to try to take the survey because it's not done yet and this is just an example!  
_  
[**2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey Draft**]( https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1h4IisKq7p8CRRVT_UXMSiKW6RE5U5nl1PLT_MvpbX2I/viewform)  
  
I want two things from you.  
  
First, please critique this draft (it's much the same as last year's). Tell me if any questions are unclear, misleading, offensive, confusing, or stupid. Tell me if the survey is so unbearably long that you would never possibly take it. Tell me if anything needs to be rephrased.  
  
Second, I am willing to include any question you want in the Super Extra Bonus Questions section, as long as it is not offensive, super-long-and-involved, or really dumb. Please post any questions you want there. Please be specific - not "Ask something about taxes" but give the exact question you want me to ask as well as all answer choices.  
  
Try not to add more than a few questions per person, unless you're sure yours are really interesting. Please also don't add any questions that aren't very easily sort-able by a computer program like SPSS unless you can commit to sorting the answers yourself.  
  
I will probably post the survey to Main and officially open it for responses sometime early next week.
# Baysian conundrum

For some time I've been pondering on a certain scenario, which I'll describe shortly. I hope you may help me find a satisfactory answer or at very least be as perplexed by this probabilistic question as me. Feel free to assign any reasonable a priori probabilities as you like. Here's the problem:  
  
It's cold cold winter. Radiators are hardly working, but it's not why you're sitting so anxiously in your chair. The real reason is that tomorrow is your assigned upload (and damn, it's just one in million chance you're not gonna get it) and you just can't wait to leave your corporality behind. "Oh, I'm so sick of having a body, especially now. I'm freezing!" you think to yourself, "I wish I were already uploaded and could just pop myself off to a tropical island."

And now it strikes you. It's a weird solution, but it feels so appealing. You make a solemn oath (you'd say one in million chance you'd break it), that soon after upload you will simulate this exact moment thousand times simultaneously and when the clock strikes 11 AM, you're gonna be transposed to a Hawaiian beach, with a fancy drink in your hand.

It's 10:59 on a clock. What's the probability that you'd be in a tropical paradise in one minute?

And to make things more paradoxical: What would be said probability, if you wouldn't have made such an oath - just seconds ago?
# What math is essential to the art of rationality?

I have started to put together a sort of curriculum for learning the subjects that lend themselves to rationality. It includes things like experimental methodology and cognitive psychology (obviously), along with "support disciplines" like computer science and economics. I think (though maybe I'm wrong) that mathematics is one of the most important things to understand.

Eliezer said in [the simple math of everything](/lw/l7/the_simple_math_of_everything/):

> It seems to me that there's a substantial advantage in knowing the _drop-dead basic fundamental embarrassingly simple_ mathematics in as many different subjects as you can manage.  Not, necessarily, the high-falutin' complicated damn math that appears in the latest journal articles.  Not unless you plan to become a professional in the field.  But for people who can read calculus, and sometimes just plain algebra, the drop-dead basic mathematics of a field may not take that long to learn.  And it's likely to change your outlook on life more than the math-free popularizations _or_ the highly technical math.

I want to have access to outlook-changing insights. So, what math do I need to know? What are the generally applicable mathematical principles that are _most_ worth learning? The above quote seems to indicate _at least_ calculus, and everyone is a fan of Bayesian statistics (which I know little about). 

Secondarily, what are some of the most important of that "_drop-dead basic fundamental embarrassingly simple_ mathematics" from different fields? What fields are mathematically based, other than physics and evolutionary biology, and economics?

What is the most important math for an educated person to be familiar with?

As someone who took an honors calculus class in high school, liked it, and did alright in the class, but who has probably forgotten most of it by now and needs to relearn it, how should I go about learning that math?
# Fighting Mosquitos

According to Louie Helm [eradicating a species of mosquitoes](http://rockstarresearch.com/engineering-the-extinction-of-40-species-of-mosquitoes/ "mosquito eradication") could be done for as little as a few million dollar.

I don't have a few million dollar lying around so I can't spend my own money to do it. On the other hand, I think that on average every German citizen would be quite willing to pay 1€ per year to rid Germany of mosquitoes that bite humans.

That means it's a problem of public action. The German government should spend 80 million Euro to rid Germany of Mosquitos. That's an order of magnitude higher than the numbers quoted by Louie Helm).

The same goes basically for every country or state with mosquitos.

How could we get a government to do this without spending too much money ourselves? The straight forward way is writing a petition. We could host a website and simultaneously post a petition to every relevant parliament on earth.

How do we get attention for the petition? Facebook. People don't like Mosquitos and should be willing to file an internet petition to get rid of them. I would believe this to spread virally. The idea seems interesting enough to get journalists to write articles about it. 

Bonus points:

After we have eradicated human biting mosquitoes from our homelands it's quite straightforward to export the technology to Africa. 

Does anyone see any issues with that plan?
# What false beliefs have you held and why were you wrong?

What is something you used to believe, preferably something concrete with direct or implied predictions, that you now know was dead wrong. Was your belief rational given what you knew and could know back then, or was it irrational, and why?

Edit: I feel like some of these are getting a bit glib and political. Please try to explain what false assumptions or biases were underlying your beliefs - be introspective - this is LW after all.
# A Day Without Defaults

_Author's note: this post was written on Sunday, Oct. 19th. Its sequel will be written on Sunday, Oct. 27th.  
_

Last night, I went to bed content with a fun and eventful weekend gone by. This morning, I woke up, took a shower, did my morning exercises, and began eat breakfast before making the commute up to work.

At the breakfast table, though, I was surprised to learn that it was Sunday, not Monday. I had misremembered what day it was and in fact had an entire day ahead of me with nothing on the agenda. At first, this wasn't very interesting, but then I started thinking. What to do with an entirely free day, without any real routine?

I realized that I didn't particularly know what to do, so I decided that I would simply live a day without defaults. At each moment of the day, I would act only in accordance with my curiosity and genuine interest. If I noticed myself becoming bored, disinterested, or otherwise less than enthused about what was going on, I would stop doing it.

What I found was quite surprising. I spent much less time doing routine activities like reading the news and browsing discussion boards, and much more time doing things that I've "always wanted to get around to"-- meditation, trying out a new exercise routine, even just spending some time walking around outside and relaxing in the sun.

Further, this seemed to actually make me more productive. When I sat down to get some work done, it was because I was legitimately interested in finishing my work and curious as to whether I could use a new method I had thought up in order to solve it. I was able to resolve something that's been annoying me for a while in much less time than I thought it would take.

By the end of the day, I started thinking "is there any reason that I don't spend every day like this?" As far as I can tell, there isn't really. I do have a few work tasks that I consider relatively uninteresting, but there are multiple solutions to that problem that I suspect I can implement relatively easily.

My plan is to spend the next week doing the same thing that I did today and then report back. I'm excited to let you all know what I find!
# Anthropic signature: strange anti-correlations

Imagine that the only way that civilization could be destroyed was by a large pandemic that occurred at the same time as a large recession, so that governments and other organisations were too weakened to address the pandemic properly.

Then if we looked at the past, as observers in a non-destroyed civilization, what would we expect to see? We could see years with no pandemics or no recessions; we could see mild pandemics, mild recessions, or combinations of the two; we could see large pandemics with no or mild recessions; or we could see large recessions with no or mild pandemics. We wouldn't see large pandemics combined with large recessions, as that would have caused us to never come into existence. These are the only things ruled out by [anthropic](http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=book/table_of_contents) effects.

Assume that pandemics and recessions are independent (at least, in any given year) in terms of "objective" (non-anthropic) probabilities. Then what would we see? We would see that pandemics and recessions appear to be independent when either of them are of small intensity. But as the intensity rose, they would start to become anti-correlated, with a large version of one completely precluding a large version of the other.

The effect is even clearer if we have a probabilistic relation between pandemics, recessions and extinction (something like: extinction risk proportional to product of recession size times pandemic size). Then we would see an anti-correlation rising smoothly with intensity.

Thus one way of looking for anthropic effects in humanity's past is to look for different classes of incidents that are uncorrelated at small magnitude, and anti-correlated at large magnitudes. More generally, to look for different classes of incidents where the correlation changes at different magnitudes - without any obvious reasons. Than might be the signature of an anthropic disaster we missed - or rather, that missed us.
# Blackmail, continued: communal blackmail, uncoordinated responses

The heuristic that one should always resist blackmail seems a good one (no matter how [tricky](/lw/hza/duller_blackmail_definitions/) [blackmail](/lw/39a/unpacking_the_concept_of_blackmail/) is to [define](/r/discussion/lw/hz9/countess_and_baron_attempt_to_define_blackmail/)). And one should be public about this, too; then, one is very unlikely to be blackmailed. Even if one [speaks like an emperor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illeism).

But there's a subtlety: what if the blackmail is being used against a whole group, not just against one person? The US justice system is often seen to function like this: prosecutors pile on ridiculous numbers charges, threatening uncounted millennia in jail, in order to get the accused to settle for a lesser charge and avoid the expenses of a trial.

But for this to work, they need to occasionally find someone who rejects the offer, put them on trial, and slap them with a ridiculous sentence. Therefore by standing up to them (or proclaiming in advance that you will reject such offers), you are not actually making yourself immune to their threats. Your setting yourself up to be the sacrificial one made an example of.

Of course, if everyone were a UDT agent, the correct decision would be for everyone to reject the threat. That would ensure that the threats are never made in the first place. But - and apologies if this shocks you - not everyone in the world is a perfect UDT agent. So the threats will get made, and those resisting them will get slammed to the maximum.

Of course, if everyone could read everyone's mind and was perfectly rational, then they would realise that making examples of UDT agents wouldn't affect the behaviour of non-UDT agents. In that case, UDT agents should resist the threats, and the perfectly rational prosecutor wouldn't bother threatening UDT agents. However - and sorry to shock your views of reality three times in one post - not everyone is perfectly rational. And not _everyone_ can read everyone's minds.

So even a perfect UDT agent must, it seems, sometimes succumb to blackmail.
# What supplements do you take, if any?

Since it turns out that it [isn't feasible](/lw/l3s/2014_less_wrong_censussurvey_call_for/bfwb) to include check as many as apply questions in the big survey, I'm asking about supplements here. I've got a bunch of questions, and I don't mind at all if you just answer some of them.

What supplements do you take? At what dosages? Are there other considerations, like with/without food or time of day?

Are there supplements you've stopped using?

How did you decide to take the supplements you're using? How do you decide whether to continue taking them?

Do you have preferred suppliers? How did you choose them?
# Is this paper formally modeling human (ir)rational decision making worth understanding?

I've found that I learn new topics best by struggling to understand a jargoney paper.  This passed through my inbox today and on the surface it appears to hit a lot of high notes.

Since I'm not an expert, I have no idea if this has any depth to it.  Hivemind thoughts?

[Modeling Human Decision Making using Extended Behavior Networks, Klaus Dorer](http://kucitypic.kasetsart.org/kucity.com8/kucity8_robocup2009_Symposium/papers/paper_19.pdf "Modeling Human Decision Making using Extended Behavior Networks, Klaus Dorer")

(Note: I'm also pushing myself to post to LW instead of lurking.  If this kind of post is unwelcome, I'm happy to hear that feedback.)
# question: the 40 hour work week vs Silicon Valley?

Conventional wisdom, and many studies, hold that 40 hours of work per week are the optimum before exhaustion starts dragging your productivity down too much to be worth it. I read elsewhere that the optimum is even lower for creative work, namely 35 hours per week, though the sources I found don't all seem to agree.

In contrast, many tech companies in silicon valley demand (or 'encourage', which is the same thing in practice) much higher work times. 70 or 80 hours per week are sometimes treated as normal.

How can this be?

Are these companies simply wrong and are actually hurting themselves by overextending their human resources? Or does the 40-hour week have exceptions?

How high is the variance in how much time people can work? If only outliers are hired by such companies, that would explain the discrepancy. Another possibility is that this 40 hour limit simply does not apply if you are really into your work and 'in the flow'. However, as far as I understand it, the problem is a question of concentration, not motivation, so that doesn't make sense.

There are many articles on the internet arguing for both sides, but I find it hard to find ones that actually address these questions instead of just parroting the same generalized responses every time: Proponents of the 40 hour week cite studies that do not consider special cases, only averages (at least as far as I could find). Proponents of the 80 hour week claim that low work weeks are only for wage slaves without motivation, which reeks of bias and completely ignores that one's own subjective estimate of one's performance is not necessarily representative of one's actual performance.

Do you know of any studies that address these issues?
# Weird Alliances

In the [recent discussion on supplements](/r/discussion/lw/l5m/what_supplements_do_you_take_if_any/), I commented on how weird an alliance health stores are. They cater for clientèle with widely divergent beliefs about how their merchandise works, such as New Agers vs. biohackers. In some cases, they cater for groups with object-level disputes about their merchandise. I imagine vegans are stoked to have somewhere to buy dairy-free facsimiles of everyday foods, but they're entering into an implicit bargain with that body-builder who's walking out of the door with two kilos of whey protein.

In the case of health stores, their clientèle have a common interest which the store is satisfying: either putting esoteric substances into their bodies, or keeping commonplace substances out of their bodies. This need is enough for people to hold their noses as they put their cash down.

(I don't actually know how \[my flimsy straw-man model of\], say, homoeopathy advocates feel about health stores. For me, it feels like wandering into enemy territory.)

I've been thinking lately about "allies" in the social justice sense of the word: marginalised groups who have unaligned object-level interests but aligned meta-interests. Lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transfolk and \[miscellaneous gender-people\] may have very different object-level interests, but a very strong common meta-interest relating to the social and legal status of sexual identities. They may also be marginalised along different axes, allowing for some sort of trade I don't have a good piece of terminology for. The LGBT(\[A-Z\]).* community is an alliance. Not being part of this community, I'm hesitant to speculate on how much of a _weird_ alliance it is, but it looks at least a little bit weird.

This has led me to think about Less Wrong as a community, in particular the following two questions:

**To what extent is Less Wrong a weird alliance?**

On paper, we're all here to help refine the art of human rationality, but in practice, we have a bunch of different object-level interests and common meta-interests in terms of getting things done well (i.e. "winning"). I explicitly dislike PUA, but I'll have a civil and productive discussion about anki decks with someone who has PUA-stuff as an object-level interest.

**Is there scope for weird, differently-marginalised trade?**

Less Wrong celebrates deviant behaviour, ostensibly as a search process for useful life-enhancing interventions, but also because we just seem to like weird stuff and have complicated relationships with social norms. Lots of other groups like weird stuff and have complicated relationships with social norms as well. Is this a common meta-interest we can somehow promote with them?
# [Link] "The Problem With Positive Thinking"

[Psychology researchers discuss their findings in a New York Times op-ed piece.](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/opinion/sunday/the-problem-with-positive-thinking.html)

The take-home advice:

> Positive thinking fools our minds into perceiving that we’ve already attained our goal, slackening our readiness to pursue it.
> 
> ...
> 
> What does work better is a hybrid approach that combines positive thinking with “realism.” Here’s how it works. Think of a wish. For a few minutes, imagine the wish coming true, letting your mind wander and drift where it will. Then shift gears. Spend a few more minutes imagining the obstacles that stand in the way of realizing your wish.
> 
> This simple process, which my colleagues and I call “mental contrasting,” has produced powerful results in laboratory experiments. When participants have performed mental contrasting with reasonable, potentially attainable wishes, they have come away more energized and achieved better results compared with participants who either positively fantasized or dwelt on the obstacles.
> 
> When participants have performed mental contrasting with wishes that are not reasonable or attainable, they have disengaged more from these wishes. Mental contrasting spurs us on when it makes sense to pursue a wish, and lets us abandon wishes more readily when it doesn’t, so that we can go after other, more reasonable ambitions.
# 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey

It's that time of year again.  
  
If you are reading this post and self-identify as a LWer, then you are the target population for the Less Wrong Census/Survey. Please take it. Doesn't matter if you don't post much. Doesn't matter if you're a lurker. Take the survey.  
  
This year's census contains a "main survey" that should take about ten or fifteen minutes, as well as a bunch of "extra credit questions". You may do the extra credit questions if you want. You may skip all the extra credit questions if you want. They're pretty long and not all of them are very interesting. But it is very important that you not put off doing the survey or not do the survey at all because you're intimidated by the extra credit questions.  
  
It also contains a chance at winning a MONETARY REWARD at the bottom. You do not need to fill in all the extra credit questions to get the MONETARY REWARD, just make an honest stab at as much of the survey as you can.  
  
Please make things easier for my computer and by extension me by reading all the instructions and by answering any text questions in the simplest and most obvious possible way. For example, if it asks you "What language do you speak?" please answer "English" instead of "I speak English" or "It's English" or "English since I live in Canada" or "English (US)" or anything else. This will help me sort responses quickly and easily. Likewise, if a question asks for a number, please answer with a number such as "4", rather than "four".  
  
The planned closing date for the survey is Friday, November 14. Instead of putting the survey off and then forgetting to do it, why not fill it out right now?  
  
Okay! Enough preliminaries! Time to take the...  
  
\*\*\*

  
\[EDIT: SURVEY CLOSED, DO NOT TAKE!\]  
  
\*\*\*  
  
Thanks to everyone who suggested questions and ideas for the 2014 Less Wrong Census/Survey. I regret I was unable to take all of your suggestions into account, because of some limitations in Google Docs, concern about survey length, and contradictions/duplications among suggestions. The current survey is a mess and requires serious shortening and possibly a hard and fast rule that it will never get longer than it is right now.  
  
By ancient tradition, if you take the survey you may comment saying you have done so here, and people will upvote you and you will get karma.
# Stupid Questions (10/27/2014)

I think it's past time for another Stupid Questions thread, so here we go. 

This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Please respect people trying to fix any ignorance they might have, rather than mocking that ignorance.