Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# Strategy vs. PR-narrative


\[This is me trying to state simply for myself a conceptual distinction I think is well-known.\]  
  
The point of PR-narrative is to make your actions understandable to other people. The point of strategy is to make high-level decisions about the (more local) aims of your thought and action, that you expect will have the consequences you want.  
  
For whatever reason, good or bad, your PR-narrative may contain lies of commission or omission, and ontological confusions--thinking something "is even a thing" that really isn't, or vice versa. (E.g. because you want people to approve your actions more than you want them to understand and predict them.)  
  
You might confuse your strategy with your PR-narrative. Both of them summarize your behavior in terms of purpose, but strategy is trying to modulate your more-zoomed-in aims to contribute to your larger aims, while PR-narrative is supposed to modulate other people's expectations of your more-zoomed-in aims. You might have both a PR-narrative and a strategy of doing X. "Going through the motions" is sometimes like, you're having the PR-narrative guide your zoomed-in behavior and not having your strategy guide it, so your behavior kind of looks like what it's supposed to look like. You can tell it's not guided by your strategy because it's not continuously answering to your detailed judgements about "will this result in X". (That could also happen e.g. because you've reached a local maximum in the motions you're going through.)  
  
When you become aware that the activity you're doing is inconsistent with your PR-narrative, there's a rising tension. Should you keep going, and cover up that you're doing it? Or admit that you're doing it, but say you're trying your best to do better, spending some social capital? Or should you try to convince people that what you're doing is actually consistent with your PR-narrative? Or force yourself to stop, so you can say you did the right thing?  
  
A similar thing might happen when you become aware that the activity you're doing is inconsistent with your strategy. A difference is that you have read and write access to everything involved in the conflict, so you could resolve it by comparing different possible strategies. Another difference is that it's more clear there shouldn't be a conflict if only you could think things through, it's all just you after all.  
  
When you've done something that's consistent with your strategy but not with your PR-narrative, you might find yourself "scrambling to get your story straight" for if/when someone asks you about what you did. "Oh, I was just trying to \[...\]", "Oh, oops, I didn't realize that \[...\]", etc.  
  
When you've done something that's consistent with your PR-narrative but not with your strategy, you might feel mysteriously sad or depressed. Or tired or "unmotivated".  
  
This is only a phenomenological description, not a normative prescription. It might be normative if you're assuming that you're inevitably in conflict with the people your PR-narrative is addressed to.
# Why must plausibilities be represented using real numbers?

Professor Jaynes writes:

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/7f5023c6a2ee12ef7e7b92b69432f2f13d0c1032e623ab7d.png)

Page 17 of his book

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/147e4bd54e578f1f383c9d20e131eefdbe390f565f18bb5b.png)

Page 656 of his book

Why must degrees of plausibility be represented using real numbers when there are alternative number systems, which ~~don’t~~ have 1-to-1 correspondence to the reals, that satisfy transitivity and universal comparability?

Kevin S. Van Horn writes in his paper, “Constructing a Logic of Plausible Inference: A Guide to Cox’s Theorem”:

![](https://39669.cdn.cke-cs.com/rQvD3VnunXZu34m86e5f/images/a6938fe5948a7581461d766e76ffc63d7bc01cf867042b67.png)

Page 10 of the paper

What’s so special about $\mathbb{R}$? If we want our theory to have no holes then why don’t we use hyperreals or complex numbers? They also satisfy transitivity and universal comparability and I would argue that they have less holes than$$  $\mathbb{R}$
# A Modest Proposal: Logging for Environmentalists

(Epistemic status: non-expert who's spent about 5 minutes looking into the subject)

So, we have more wildfires this year in California, which are once again screwing up the local air quality.  As I understand it, there's lots of dry wood accumulating; the fires are bound to happen eventually, and if we manage to suppress them for some years, they'll just burn harder when (not if) the blaze finally happens—and we're currently reaping the effects of prior years of fire suppression.

I had a hunch, and googled, and found [an article](https://news.mongabay.com/2020/09/off-the-chart-co2-from-california-fires-dwarf-states-fossil-fuel-emissions/) from September 2020 that says:

> This year’s fires in California have already burned through 1.4 million hectares (3.4 million acres) of land, and the fire season isn’t set to end for at least a couple of months.
> 
> The fires have already generated more than 91 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, which is about 25% more than the state’s annual emissions from fossil fuels.

Which led me to an idea.  Could you pay logging companies to take a bunch of that wood, possibly chopping down some fraction of the living trees in the process, and do something with it that will prevent it being burned?  Good lumber can be used for construction (and you could sell it to the logging companies to help pay for this), bad wood can be buried or something.

Would the economics work out?  [A 2008 paper](https://cbmjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1750-0680-3-1) estimates the costs of burying wood, as a carbon-capture technique, to be $14 per ton of CO2.  This would be *without* any offsets from selling the good lumber.  Meanwhile, there was [a recent thread](https://old.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/p50ekn/an_upper_bound_on_the_cost_of_fixing_climate/) on /r/slatestarcodex about the costs of carbon capture, and most of the numbers I see there are much higher.  (It seems the cost estimates for many proposed methods involve a lot of guesswork about economies of scale.)  And it would have the further benefit of shrinking the wildfires and improving Californian air quality.  I *thought* there might be a low-hanging fruit tree here.

Anyway, neither practical politics nor this type of technology are my domain, nor do I know anyone who *does* work in the right domain, so I will just leave the idea here.
# Cafe Meetup 8/21: Taboo-ing practice

Note: Actual Taboo activity only starts at 2:30 pm.

It's been a while since we did Taboo, and even longer since in-person.

Taboo is a board game, but also a [rationalist exercise](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Rationalist_taboo) that tests your worldmodel's ability to maintain a deep understanding across domains. You are required to get others to say a target word, while also restricted from using certain related words from a "prohibited" list.

We start with Taboo cards that [from this site](https://playtaboo.com/playpage). You're also welcome to submit rationality-themed cards of your own for the game, which should look something like this (or formatted as in the link):

Target word: Ethics

Prohibited words: Good, Right, Moral, Proper, Should

\*\*\*

The meetup is at Central Market, 4001 N. Lamar, in the cafe area. Look for the LW and SSC signs. People start arriving at 1:30 pm, and the main activity will begin at 2:30 pm. In light of the recent developments about Covid cases in Austin **please follow store guidance on masks, stay home if sick or unvaccinated.**
# Provide feedback on Open Philanthropy’s AI alignment RFP


Open Philanthropy is planning a request for proposals (RFP) for AI alignment projects working with deep learning systems, and we’re looking for feedback on the RFP and on the research directions we’re looking for proposals within. We’d be really interested in feedback from people on the Alignment Forum on the current (incomplete) draft of the RFP.  
  
The main RFP text can be viewed [**here**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NQYS_4Yf3GRtT4tz41HCNYfdCTQQtuxoouLn1Lj4XSs/edit?usp=sharing). It links to several documents describing two of the research directions we’re interested in:

*   [**Measuring and forecasting risks**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KzEh-O2Lwb_nSXvQ_kEGePzAtO8scXficiqcc5LKHKc/edit?usp=sharing)
*   [**Techniques for enhancing human feedback**](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rjQ4-pYWhAJZQV1liZglyfvZSa4zz-IFEUqPK5BR7LM/edit?usp=sharing) \[Edit: this previously linked to an older, incorrect version\] 

Please feel free to comment either directly on the documents, or in the comments section below.  
  
We are unlikely to add or remove research directions at this stage, but we are open to making any other changes, including to the structure of the RFP. We’d be especially interested in getting the Alignment Forum’s feedback on the research directions we present, and on the presentation of our broader views on AI alignment. It’s important to us that our writing about AI alignment is accurate and easy to understand, and that it’s clear how the research we’re proposing relates to our goals of reducing risks from power-seeking systems.
# Is antibody testing to assess effects of vaccines on you a good idea?

I've had 2 Pfizer doses and was wondering if it's worth it to do a commercial antibody test to assess if I've had an adequate immune response and check antibody levels. This can also be used to decide whether to go for a 3rd booster shot if/when these become available.  
  
Has anyone done this and do you think it would be useful?
# Treatments for depression that depressed LW readers may not have tried?

I would guess that a disproportionate amount of LessWrong readers are significantly impaired by depression. Successful treatment of depression is greatly beneficial to 1) quality of life and 2) ability to impact the world. What are some ways to manage depression that some LessWrong readers may not have considered strongly enough, if at all?

(My reasons for asking this are also partly selfish.)
# What fraction of breakthrough COVID cases are attributable to low antibody count?

To what extent are COVID cases in vaccinated people a result of low antibody count, vs other factors (e.g. initial viral load)? Where does most of the variance come from?

Motivation for this question: in a world where most breakthrough COVID cases hit people with low antibody count, one could get some kind of antibody test (probably of a particular type) and then either (a) get an extra vaccine if antibodies are low, or (b) just don't worry if antibody counts are high. That makes antibody tests (of whatever the particular type is) very high value, since we can behave very differently in those two cases. In a world where most of the variance comes from other factors (like initial viral load), results of an antibody test don't provide so much value.

Related: [Is antibody testing to assess effects of vaccines on you a good idea?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ChbtahQmC3ayFMzDu/is-antibody-testing-to-assess-effects-of-vaccines-on-you-a)
# The Death of Behavioral Economics

Edit: I recommend reading [Scott's response to this essay](https://www.lessestwrong.com/posts/gBpYo7mt2zNBmtBJd/crosspost-on-hreha-on-behavioral-economics) in addition to the essay itself.

I've been tracking the replication crisis and how it affects a bunch of behavioral economics for a while. I found reading this post useful for a particularly negative take. Some key quotes:

> It sure does look alive... but it's a zombie—inside and out.
> 
> Why do I say this?
> 
> Two primary reasons:
> 
> 1.  Core behavioral economics findings have been failing to replicate for several years, and \*the\* core finding of behavioral economics, loss aversion, is on ever more shaky ground.
> 2.  Its interventions are surprisingly weak in practice.
> 
> Because of these two things, I don't think that behavioral economics will be a respected and widely used field 10-15 years from now.

\[...\]

> It turns out that loss aversion does exist, but only for large losses. This makes sense. We \*should\* be particularly wary of decisions that can wipe us out. That's not a so-called "cognitive bias". It's not irrational. In fact, it's completely sensical. If a decision can destroy you and/or your family, it's sane to be cautious.
> 
> "So when did we discover that loss aversion exists only for large losses?"
> 
> Well, actually, it looks like Kahneman and Tversky, winners of the Nobel Prize in Economics, knew about this unfortunate fact when they were developing Prospect Theory—their grand theory with loss aversion at its center. Unfortunately, the findings rebutting their view of loss aversion were carefully omitted from their papers, and other findings that went against their model were misrepresented so that they would instead support their pet theory. In short: any data that didn't fit Prospect Theory was dismissed or distorted.
> 
> I don't know what you'd call this behavior... but it's not science.
> 
> This shady behavior by the two titans of the field was brought to light in a paper published in 2018: "[Acceptable Losses: The Debatable Origins of Loss Aversion](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00426-018-1013-8)".
> 
> I encourage you to read the paper. It's shocking. This line from the abstract sums things up pretty well: "...the early studies of utility functions have shown that while very large losses are overweighted, smaller losses are often not. In addition, the findings of some of these studies have been systematically misrepresented to reflect loss aversion, though they did not find it."
# An Open Letter To Myself On How To Not Get Any Work Done.

This is a letter to myself on how to not get any work done. A skill I have perfected over years of practice. And leveraged to its full potential for most of my life. You could say I'm a master at it.

How To Not Get Any Work Done(while simultaneously feeling like you're getting work done)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear future Harry,

In your old age, I don't want you to get too good at doing things you want to do. So, I have taken the liberty of jotting down some tips on how not to do things you want to do. Follow these and you won't need to worry about doing things you want to do ever again.

### General Tips

1.  This is the best tip I have for you. Your phone notifications need to be on. And you need to be in as many large active Whatsapp and Messenger conversations as possible.   
     
2.  Keep your phone on your person. Better yet, put it within eyesight. Preferably next to your laptop or desktop.  
     
3.  Consume snacks until you feel sick. Then keep snacking.  
     
4.  Take a toilet break every 7 minutes.  
     
5.  Think about your to-do list constantly and half-assedly complete items on it.  
     
6.  Work on something you don't want to be working on.  
     
7.  Don't track your time. So you can fool yourself into thinking you have worked for 10 minutes.  
     
8.  Expect perfection the first time around. Don't allow any mistakes.

### Tips On Your Work/Study Space

1.  Make sure it's as messy as possible. Deep work can't sneak in while there is a blockade of crap surrounding you.  
     
2.  Make sure you can see the fridge or open cupboard.  
     
3.  If you can, sit where you can see lots of people.  
     
4.  Prowl around your work/study space looking for potential victims to have superficial conversations with.

![](https://web.archive.org/web/20210824003420im_/https://thehappyorchardblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/2108-How-not-to-do-work-1024x427.png)

me getting distracted

### Tips For When Your Working On A Computer

1.  Have as many apps open as possible. Turn their notifications on.  
     
2.  Ensure your internet browser has a minimum of 10 tabs open. Preferably about future shopping purchases or YouTube videos — videos with productivity or focus tips are an excellent choice.  
     
3.  Split-screen your computer allowing your favourite show to play in the background.  
     
4.  Have a messy desktop background. Cover it with lots of shortcuts. And while you're at it, put your favourite video game shortcut in the middle.   
     
5.  Play loud fast paced music with lyrics. Make sure to change the song every 2 minutes.   
     
6.  When you can't decide on a song, spend 45 minutes reading articles about the best music to help you work.

There you are Harry. Follow these tips to not get anything you want to do done.

You're very welcome.

Sincerely,

Past You.
# Berlin, Germany – ACX Meetups Everywhere 2021 

This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Berlin, Germany.

Location: Südplateau Fritz-Schloss-Park – [///directly.packing.pardon](https://what3words.com////directly.packing.pardon)

Contact: ssc@alphabattle.xyz.

A lot of people RSVPed, so there won't be enough benches. If you can, bring something to sit on. We have made some accommodations for drinks and food.
# Berkeley, CA – ACX Meetups Everywhere 2021 

This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Berkeley, CA.

Location: Lawn of Valley Life Sciences Building, UC Berkeley campus – [///deflection.jump.puppy](https://what3words.com////deflection.jump.puppy)

Contact: [meetupsmingyuan@gmail.com](mailto:meetupsmingyuan@gmail.com), [Facebook event](https://www.facebook.com/events/1055279395277875/)
# Ann Arbor, MI – ACX Meetups Everywhere 2021 

This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in Ann Arbor, MI.

Location: Island Park Shelter A, Ann Arbor, MI We will be at Island Park Shelter A. It is the first shelter when you enter the park, closest to the foot bridge to the island. – [///slices.zealous.launch](https://what3words.com////slices.zealous.launch)

Contact: samrossini9@gmail.com
# New York City, NY – ACX Meetups Everywhere 2021 

This year's ACX Meetup everywhere in New York City, NY! 

### Everyone is Welcomed! Yes, You!

Please feel free to come even if you feel awkward about it, even if you’re not ‘the typical SSC reader’, even if you’re worried people won’t like you, even if you have never been to a meetup before, etc. If the opportunity cost of attending is not too high to you, come! You'd always have the option to leave if the event does not live up to your expectations, but you might meet some like-minded people if you are here :)

### Prepare for Conversations

If you have a topic that you're interested in discussing with people, feel free to prepare a sign or name tag that says "talk to me about <topic>." There will also be name tags available at the meetup.

Here is a [list of ice breaker questions](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nXojemZyXvATRew5s/what-are-some-good-rationalist-ice-breaker-questions) to help you start conversations!

### Logistics

Scott Alexander plans to come around 5PM, but we'd likely start the meetup earlier than that, at 3PM. You're not required to show up at 3PM, come and go at your leisure.

Bring some water because you might be talking a lot.

Location: Teardrop Park – [///swung.shape.shows](https://what3words.com////swung.shape.shows). Look for signs that say "ACX Meetup" or familiar faces :)
# Moscow, Russia – ACX Meetups Everywhere 2021

This year's ACX Meetups everywhere in Moscow, Russia.

*   Location: Muzeon park, in front of the entry to the New Tretyakov Gallery; [join our chat](https://t.me/joinchat/lAu3wxmE9vgzMThi) for the updates
*   Coordinates: [https://what3words.com/sectors.toffee.sweeten](https://what3words.com/sectors.toffee.sweeten)
*   Contact: [mike.yagudin@gmail.com](mailto:mike.yagudin@gmail.com) or t.me/yagudin
# What are some good rationalist ice breaker questions?

This question [has been asked](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tLJ87uJztSPpnjawb/what-are-good-ice-breaker-questions-for-meeting-people-in), but I will ask again. In light of the upcoming meetups everywhere, I thought it would be a good idea to compile a list of ice breaker questions, so we can make it easier for people to start conversations.

A few questions that have worked well for me:
- What do you think about when you're not thinking about work?
- How did you get into ACX/SSC/LW/EA?
- What's something you've been putting lots of effort in recently?
- [What have you been thinking about lately?](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Gq6vdjrPkxrt7ZZbK/ask-not-how-are-you-doing?commentId=JD3zkFnj2n9HkmkaQ)

Any other prompts?
# Sam Altman at the AstralCodexTen Online Meetup

Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, joining us again. Almost a year ago we had a great meeting with Sam— with record attendance!

Our  meetup on Sunday, September 5, 2021, will start off with a Q&A. You can ask questions on AI, AGI, OpenAI, or any other topics.

After that, we will  socialize on video-chat rooms.

The meetup starts 10:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 17:30 UTC, 20:30 Israel Daylight Time.  
  
Please [register here](https://forms.gle/Y1EQN7DiZpnJj8GR7) , and we'll send you an invitation closer to the time.
# (apologies for Alignment Forum server outage last night)

The Alignment Forum was down between approx 1:30AM and 7:00AM PDT last night due to what seems to be a memory leak issue (postmortem ongoing). We're setting up some additional monitoring to ensure this doesn't happen again.

Apologies for any inconvenience experienced!
# Signaling Virtuous Victimhood as Indicators of Dark Triad Personalities

A recent paper at the University of British Columbia describes five studies which, taken together, provide evidence that tendency to engage in victimhood signalling is correlated across individuals with Dark Triad personality traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy).

Results were robust across the general US and Canada population gathered on mTurk as well as within a sample of Canadian undergraduates.

A link to the full study is provided in this post.
# How much COVID protection is gained from protecting your eyes?

So, as I understand it there are three main spots on the body where COVID infection typically takes place -- the nose, the mouth, and the eyes. It is relatively easy to obtain a very protective mask for the nose and mouth (n95/p100), but a large majority of people seem to be using masks that do not provide eye protection. How much extra protection can be gained by protecting your eyes?  
  
(Obviously, the degree of protection one might use can vary -- on the low end we might have "wear glasses", while then we might progress further with things like "disposable face shield over mask", "wear a full face respirator rather than nose/mouth only", and then even "full head positive pressure hood" on the very high end.)
# What could small scale disasters from AI look like?

If an AI system or systems goes wrong in the near term and causes harm to humans in a way which is consistent with or supportive of alignment being a big deal, what might it look like?

I'm asking because I'm curious about potential fire-alarm scenarios (including things which just help to make AI risks salient to the wider public), and also looking to operationalise a forecasting question which is currently drafted as

> ***By 2032, will we see an event precipitated by AI that causes at least 100 deaths and/or at least $1B 2021 USD in economic damage?***

to allow a clear and sensible resolution.
# From Branes to Brains. How mathematical physics can be used in life sciences. 

When I was a Masters student, I was doing mathematical physics and I was feeling quite lost. I didn’t feel that I was good enough to continue or to outcompete everyone on the path to tenure. Moreover, I wasn’t even as motivated as I used to be – I didn’t see how the stuff I was doing could plausibly help people, and this feeling of uselessness was really daunting. What was worse, I felt that there was no way out. I had already spent so much time studying mathematical physics, how possibly could I do anything else?

Somehow I got accepted to a good Ph.D. program. I was confident that I should just continue doing what I was doing, as it was too late to change tracks. And what else could I do? 

Fortunately, I was wrong. I discovered that I could easily fit into theoretical biophysics with my background, and the problems here were even more interesting than in the mathematical physics. Here, I finally see the purpose of my research.

I am writing this series of posts for the people in theoretical physics who experience the same turmoil. I will not try to persuade you that working in biophysics will bring you a career, happiness, or the tools to improve society at large -- though I personally believe this to be true. Instead, I will present you with the problems in biophysics, where the methods of mathematical physics, high energy physics etc. are useful. That problems that are not only fun to solve,  but whose solution can also make a big positive impact.

To avoid confusion, I will talk about only the cases where the methods of theoretical physics are useful, not the cases where high energy or quantum effects play a significant role. The latter cases are significantly less common than the former ones.

Each post will be devoted to a particular topic and will review one or few papers on it. If you want me to discuss a particular topic/paper, or find a mistake, or want to contact me for any other reason – just leave a comment. If you are specialist in a particular topic that is relevant to this series and would like to contribute, I will gratefully publish your post. 

The first post will appear this weekend.
# Reward splintering as reverse of interpretability

There is a sense in which [reward splintering](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/k54rgSg7GcjtXnMHX/model-splintering-moving-from-one-imperfect-model-to-another-1) is the reverse of interpretability.

Interpretability is basically:

* "This algorithm is doing something really complicated; nevertheless, I want a simple model that explains essentially what it is doing. If there is no obvious simple model, I want an explanatory model to be taught to me with the least amount of complexity, distortion, or manipulation."

Reward splintering is:

* "Here is my simple model of what the algorithm should be doing. I want the algorithm to essentially do that, even if its underlying behaviour is really complicated. If it must deviate from this simple model, I want it to deviate in a way that has the least amount of complexity, distortion, or manipulation."
# [Sponsored] Job Hunting in the Modern Economy

This article was sponsored by [Aigent®](https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ).

---

Applying to job postings is a waste of time. To get a good job you need to network. But engineers aren't trained in networking (well, not the biological kind). We're trained in technology. Expecting an engineer to network effectively is like teaching a dog to play basketball. It's possible, but it's a waste of everyone's time.

Much of the work done in networking is repetitive. "Why yes I am *so* excited to be working at <company name>. I've wanted to be part of <company name> since I was a little kid. I love how unique and quirky <company name>'s culture is." Show employers how good you are at technology by automating the application process itself.

You know those standardized coding tests that are easy but take a long time? Aigent®'s software takes them for you. Aigent®'s technology can apply to thousands of jobs at a time. No matter how good you are at manual job hunting, there's no way to match the scale of robotic process automation (RPA). For an extra $15.99 per month you can upload a photo of yourself and Aigent® will deepfake a live video feed. Aigent®'s patented technology can pass all of the most popular CAPTCHAs.

Worried that you don't have useful skills? There are many jobs where RPA has surpassed human workers but companies haven't gotten around to replacing human workers yet. Aigent® can feed you real time instructions in exchange for a 20% of your salary.

Already have a job? Let Aigent® use your work to passively train our RPA and Aigent® will pay you a at least 20% of your salary [some restrictions apply]. Exclusive contracts and valuable industries can pay up to 150%.

Sign up with coupon code LSUSR and you'll get 200 free applications and 100 free posts (over the course of three months) on work-related social media.
# Open & Welcome Thread September 2021

If it’s worth saying, but not worth its own post, here's a place to put it.

If you are new to LessWrong, here's the place to introduce yourself. Personal stories, anecdotes, or just general comments on how you found us and what you hope to get from the site and community are invited. This is also the place to discuss feature requests and other ideas you have for the site, if you don't want to write a full top-level post.

If you want to explore the community more, I recommend [reading the Library,](https://www.lesswrong.com/library) [checking recent Curated posts](https://www.lesswrong.com/?view=curated), [seeing if there are any meetups in your area](https://www.lesswrong.com/community), and checking out the [Getting Started](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2rWKkWuPrgTMpLRbp/lesswrong-faq-1#Getting_Started) section of the [LessWrong FAQ](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2rWKkWuPrgTMpLRbp/lesswrong-faq-1). If you want to orient to the content on the site, you can also check out the new [Concepts section](https://www.lesswrong.com/tags/all).

The Open Thread tag is [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/open-threads?sortedBy=new). The Open Thread sequence is [here](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/yai5mppkuCHPQmzpN).
# Growth of prediction markets over time?

I would love to see a graph of the total amount of money sloshing around in prediction markets in 2021, 2020, 2019, etc. stretching back as far as we have data. I'm wondering whether there is a trend and if so what the growth rate is. My Google-fu is failing me so I'm asking here in case anyone else knows.
# Is there a name for the theory that "There will be fast takeoff in real-world capabilities because almost everything is AGI-complete"?

I think it's plausible that:  
1) For many applications, getting narrow AI to do a task well enough to be valuable doesn't seem worth it, and likely isn't (esp. when considering opportunity cost and alternative applications of AI).  
2) Thus proto-AGI is actually not going to change the world that much  
3) But OFC, AGI will (once/assuming it's cheap enough)  
  
If correct, this could mean that people probably won't really be impressed by narrow AI at any point, and then all of the sudden, we get AGI and everything changes rapidly.   
  
I'm just sketching it out and probably didn't do the best job, but my questions are: Is this something people have seen argued?  Is there a name for it?  (or want to propose one?)
# [Review] Edge of Tomorrow (2014)

This post contains spoilers for *Edge of Tomorrow* (2014) and *All You Need is Kill* (2004).

# Spoiler-Free tl;dr

Watch *Edge of Tomorrow* up until the scene at the dam. Skip the rest of the film and read *All You Need is Kill* instead.

# Spoilerific Review

Edge of tomorrow is *Groundhog Day* (1993) except instead of taking place in a small town in the 90s it takes places on the Invasion of Normandy in a future war against aliens.

![](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/edge-of-tomorrow/edge-of-tomorrow.jpg)

## Act 1

In the first scene, Tom Cruise goes through his day normally. He dies and comes back to life. He relives the same day over and over until he gets used to how the time loop works. At the end of Act 1, Tom Cruise discovers that war heroine Emily Blunt used to have the time travel power too and they team up.

![](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/edge-of-tomorrow/26857738b792fd6c216c1eb7a8568686.jpg)

## Act 2

Emily Blunt trains Tom Cruise to fight. They fight the aliens over and over again, getting a little better each time.

![](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/edge-of-tomorrow/ed6.jpg)

## Act 3

In Act 3 Tom Cruise loses his time travel power. Together, he and Emily Blunt have only one shot to kill the boss alien.

Act 1 and Act 2 make sense. They're structurally identical to *Groundhog Day*. But Act 3 is awful. This is a time travel movie. In Act 3 there's no time travelling! It turns into a generic action flick.

What happened?

## All You Need is Kill

*Edge of Tomorrow* was originally based on the Japanese light novel *All You Need is Kill*. Act 1 and Act 2 are the same. I hypothesize Act 3 was modified for American audiences.

In *All You Need is Kill*, Emily Blunt never loses her time travelling power. She fights alongside Tom Cruise as an equal. They kill the boss alien together.

But the story doesn't end there.

![](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/edge-of-tomorrow/all-you-need-is-kill-chapter-16-page-9.jpg)

In *All You Need is Kill* there is a detailed explanation about how the time travel works. To escape each time loop our heroes need to kill the alien loopers, leaving only themselves. But since both Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are both loopers, only one of them can escape the final time loop. One of them has to die.

So at the end of the story there's a big epic duel to the death between our two heroes who love each other and have spent the entire story training and fighting alongside each other.

*That* is how you end a time travel samurai epic.

![](https://s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/edge-of-tomorrow/all-you-need-is-kill-chapter-16-page-22.jpg)
# Kids Roaming

Over the last hundred years here, there's been a clear trend down in how far kids can wander at a given age. I think a lot of this comes from the [demographic transition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition): with fewer kids and lower child mortality, previously acceptable risks become less so. On the other hand, I think it's really good for kids to [learn how to be independent](https://www.jefftk.com/p/growing-independence), and going where you want is an important component.

Let's say we started allowing our two older kids (7y and 5y) to wander farther from the house: what are the risks?

I think the biggest risk is cars. When my kids were learning to walk I [taught them to stay out of the street](https://www.jefftk.com/p/street-training), and more recently we've been practicing crossing. They're now to the point where I can tell them "cross when you think it's safe", and almost all the time they do it correctly. Unfortunately, "almost" isn't good enough here: they need to have the skill completely solid before I'm happy for them to do it unsupervised.

In cases where they don't have to cross any streets alone, like [walking to school](https://www.jefftk.com/p/walking-to-school) or walking around the block, as long as I know they're going it's fine. But let's say that in a few months, perhaps around when they're 8y and 6y, they're ready to cross our neighborhood streets together. They could potentially walk to the playground, [linear park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerville_Community_Path), and various friends houses, all within a few blocks. What are the risks then?

Potentially they could:

*   Get lost.
*   Get hurt to where they need help.
*   Get kidnapped.
*   Get stopped by the police or others, who might think they're too young to be out on their own.

I don't think any of these are very likely: they're generally cautious and have good judgement, and if something did go wrong they'd only be about 1/8mi from the house.

I do wonder whether technology might mean we could give them more freedom for a given level of safety, however, with a cell phone or GPS watch? Something where they could contact us if they needed help, and we could see where they were. Has anyone tried anything like this?
# Improving rationality / scout mindset on a debate group

(Cross-posted from [my Facebook wall](https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1526031927760406&id=100010608396052).)

I help run a decent-sized debate group on Facebook focused on arguments for / against religion in general and Orthodox Judaism in particular (I grew up Orthodox but stopped believing around 7 years ago). I think my fellow moderators and I have done a relatively decent job of ensuring that the discussion stays (mostly, usually) respectful. But beyond respectful dialogue, I'd like to also encourage members to use better epistemic standards. Especially, I would love to get people from both sides to do [adversarial collaborations](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/adversarial-collaboration), try to more often play "devil's advocate", [steelman](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/steelmanning) the other side's position, attempt to pass [Ideological Turing Tests](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/ideological-turing-tests), etc. - basically, to try to adopt more of a ["scout mindset" rather than a "soldier mindset"](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/yFJ7vCjefBxnTchmG/outline-of-galef-s-scout-mindset).

I've tried directly asking people to try practicing these techniques more frequently, but with very limited success. I suppose it doesn't help that the group is explicitly a debate group - but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that's part of what attracts people to the group in the first place so I'm reluctant to change it. It also doesn't help that many people in the group (on all sides) really don't think that the people they're arguing against have anything going for their positions. We do at least have a few people in the group who really are great at scout mindset though. Better than I am, in fact - I will admit that I myself often have a lot of difficulty applying these techniques.

What are some ideas or suggestions for how I might be able to encourage better epistemic standards in this kind of group?

Group audience, if it's relevant (although probably some members of the group will disagree with these characterizations):

*   Most members are at least interested in reasonable, respectful intellectual discussion.
*   I *think* most but not all members are at least somewhat interested in improving their own rational thinking. Some are very interested, but even for those people I often have a hard time encouraging more of a scout mindset.
*   Many members are quite knowledgeable about philosophy, rational thinking, science, history, etc.; others are much less knowledgeable in many or all of those areas. (Part of this is because many members come from relatively insular Orthodox Jewish communities that strongly discourage going to college and often provide sub-par education in lower grades.)
# Are there substantial research efforts towards aligning narrow AIs?

I am certainly not an expert, but what I have read in the field of AI alignment is almost solely targeted at handling the question of how to make sure that a general AI does not start optimizing for outcomes that humans do not want to happen.

This is, to me, an obviously important problem, in that it seems like we only get one chance at it and if we fail we are all Doomed. 

However, it also seems like a very difficult problem to get good feedback on since there are no AGIs to test different strategies on, [which can make estimating the promise of different avenues of research very difficult](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JnKCaGcgZL4Rsep8m/schools-proliferating-without-evidence). 

A related problem in which real world feedback can be more readily attained might be alignment of narrow AIs. It seems to me that existing AIs already demonstrate properties that appear to be misaligned with the intentions of their programmers. For example, websites such as Facebook and YouTube employ algorithms to personalize the recommended content a user sees to keep them engaged and thus generating the companies more ad revenue. On the face of it, there seems to be nothing wrong with optimizing to show people what they want to see. Unfortunately, a very effective strategy for accomplishing this goal in many cases appears to be showing people extremely misleading or fabricated stories about reality which both support what the person already believes and creates a large emotional response. In this way these platforms support the spread of misinformation and political polarization, which was almost certainly not the intent of the programmers who probably imagined themselves to be creating a service that would be uniquely tailored to be enjoyable for everyone.

This problem does not seem to be something that can be simply patched, much in the way deficient friendly AI designs do not seem patchable. It seems, at least when I try to consider a possible solution, [impossible](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/nCvvhFBaayaXyuBiD/shut-up-and-do-the-impossible), though not as impossible an impossibility as aligned AGI. The key immediate problems in my mind are “how do you decide what counts as misinformation in a relatively unbiased manner?” and “if you don’t fulfill people’s desire for confirmation of their poorly supported beliefs, how do you make your platform as attractive as a competitor who will fill that confirmation bias itch?”

Tackling the challenge of “build an AI system that recommends content to users without spreading misinformation” or something similar seems as though it could provide a reasonably relevant test for ideas for outer alignment of AI systems. There are clearly a number of relevant differences between this kind of test and actual AGI, but the fact that fields without concrete ways to test their ideas have historically not done well seems a very important consideration.

So are there groups doing this sort of research, and if not is there a good reason why such research would not be particularly useful for the AI alignment field?
# Should I treat pain differently if it’s “all in my head?”

I sometimes suffer from [RSI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repetitive_strain_injury). I’ve heard several people I respect say that they think most RSI is a psychological phenomenon. My understanding of their view is that they think there’s a feedback loop where you notice your wrists hurting and then you are anxious about the pain, causing you to pay more attention to it, which causes more pain though some mechanism we don’t yet understand. For the purposes of this post, I’m interested in the hypothetical of if something like that story is true.

I have some stories for what I’d do differently:

*   Ask a doctor to prescribe some psychiatric drugs, like SSRIs if I thought it was related to anxiety

And some things I’d do the same:

*   Continue to rest my wrists and do voice work when things get bad

But some things I’m uncertain about:

*   Do ergnomics matter?

I know several others who also suffer from RSI, and honestly I think the question is even more complicated there. Am I making my friends’ conditions worse if I talk about my condition?

(As a side note: I’m super glad that I can do voice work and give my wrists a rest. I honestly enjoy it, which is for sure not the typical experience. I am very grateful that I drew ”enjoys voice input” in the lottery of fascinations. While I admittedly haven’t seen many people get the benefit I have, if you’re reading this and would like my help getting set up using Talon Voice, send me a DM.)
# Russian x-risks newsletter summer 2021

There were not many x-risk-related events in this period in Russia.

Covid mortality reached all times high in Russia, despite obvious lies about the number of deaths: they are almost always 799 a day. This is mostly due to the delta variant and failure to vaccinate most people. As a friend said: “My organisation is making up all numbers. Why I should believe the numbers from the other Russian organisation about vaccine efficiency?” However, citizen scientists showed that only the Sputnik vaccine actually works, and two other Russian vaccines, Covivak and Epivak, have near-zero efficiency. No foreign vaccines are allowed in Russia.

I have revaccinated with Astrazeneca in Montenegro and had some small peripheral neuropathy in the leg as a side effect. Revaccination with Sputnik is also open in Russia, but Russian vaccination certificates are not accepted in most countries.

Smoke from large forest fires in Yakutia region reached the North Pole. Russia has one of the largest forest reserves in the world and it was suggested decades ago that artificial fires in them could cause an effect similar to nuclear winter and be used as a climatic weapon.

As it typically happens, aeroplane accidents peaked in August, with 8 different aircraft crashed, all Russian made, but no large ones. This is due to the peak in tourism and tests as well as the peak of hot weather.
# Why there are no online CFAR workshops?

As there are many people here here who attended CFAR workshops, I wanted to ask, if you understand why there are no online workshops, even when the in-person workshops were not possible due to the pandemic. In my experience, everything that does not require physical contact (like martial arts) can be taught online. There can be some inconveniences, of course, but if planned well, it can work quite smoothly. I can think about very small amount of reasons, and none of them seems persuasive to me.  
  
1\. Maybe CFAR workshop indeed requires physical contact? Sounds quite strange.  
  
2\. Maybe organizers are not good with technologies and don't know how to do different Zoom rooms, how to make parties in Mozilla Hubs etc.? Maybe they have never heard about properly organized online schools?  Sounds even less likely.  
  
3\. Maybe CFAR workshop requires full embedding with no distraction? Well, it can be clarified in the announcement as a requirement for the participants, and for many people, it is certainly a possible thing to do.  
  
4\. Maybe CFAR somehow got into a death spiral and turned into something like  [Lifespring](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifespring)? I would hope it is unlikely in the rationalistic community, but here is more hope than actual belief.
# ACX Meetups: Montreal  09/18 
**see description**

Next ACX meetup in Montreal. You will need to be fully vaccinated to attend.  

SEE EXACT LOCATION HERE: [https://what3words.com/basis.fines.darling](https://what3words.com/basis.fines.darling) 

**Please bring blankets and drinks if you want to have some! **

**If you can't make it for this event but would like to hear about others, sign up for the mailing list here:** [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdDGEsDTdJ48AacBFfO8XGOvBYPJoCA7z6S6I1TEU7j7O3TBQ/viewform](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdDGEsDTdJ48AacBFfO8XGOvBYPJoCA7z6S6I1TEU7j7O3TBQ/viewform)