Harley-ml/lesswrong huggingface dataset:
# The Darwin Game - Conclusion

Evolution is unintelligent. The bugs removed intelligence from the design of the bots. The more bugs I wrote into my simulator, the better my simulation replicated real-world Darwinian population dynamics. After two alternate timelines with a buggy game engine, I have finally gotten around to running the game for real.

Alas, this game is between intelligently-designed species, not randomly-generated chunks of code.

# Rounds 0-20

MeasureBot takes an early lead.

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/darwin-game/conclusion/bar-0-20.png)

# Rounds 21-40

Multicore's EarlyBirdMimicBot steals the lead from MeasureBot.

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/darwin-game/conclusion/bar-20-40.png)

# Rounds 41-1208

Welcome to Planet Multicore.

![](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.lsusr.com/lesswrong/darwin-game/conclusion/bar-40-1208.png)


# Winner

| Bot                          | Team            | Description                                                                                                       | Round |
|------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------|
| EarlyBirdMimicBot                   | Multicore      | [Superintelligence](https://www.lesswrong.com/s/wKPWFvdMyvgDWfusX/p/Tq8qeRxQ4pB3b5RKg#Multicore)                                                                                             | ∞      |

# Today's Obituary

Everyone else.

# Conclusion

I hope you had fun. This wouldn't have been possible without the community here at Less Wrong. At least 75% of the code (not counting pseudocode) was written by people other than me. Thank you everyone who competed, debated, plotted and hacked. Thank you for the espionage and counter-espionage. Thank you everyone who helped spot bugs in the game engine. Thank you Zvi for posting the original Less Wrong Darwin Game series. Extra thanks to moderator Ben Pace for prettifying the tables behind the scenes and moderator Oliver for fixing multiple timestamps.

The source code to the game and all the bots is available [here](https://gitlab.com/lsusr/less-wrong-darwin-game). If there is a bug in this timeline you can fix it yourself.

This concludes the 2020 Less Wrong Darwin Game.
# Online Meetup for the Meetup Organizers (Sun, 20th December)

*Added:* [*FB Event*](https://fb.me/e/3o4b0vRWy)

If you currently or historically have organized meetups for your community (LW/SSC/EA/MIRIx/etc), please join us on **Sunday, December 20th at 2:00PM (PT)** in the LessWrong Walled Garden.

I reckon it'd be great to get various meetup organizers in the same place to share experiences, tell stories, brainstorm ideas, and just hang out with other people who understand what an underestimatedly difficult task being an organizer is.

I estimate the core of the event will run for 1-2 hours with people welcome to stick around for as long as they like. [**Link to enter the event.**](http://garden.lesswrong.com?code=mFSI&event=meetup-for-meetup-organizers) We'll meet in the Mushroom Kingdom.

In related news, LessWrong is [offering meetup organizers the use of the Walled Garden](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/HgSnt8bvjdQ9rf7eo/meetup-organizers-our-virtual-garden-is-at-your-disposal) for hosting your events. We've crafted it exquisitely and hope it makes it possible to have great events even during these physically distanced times.

This year has been rough for meetups, but there's room to persevere. Join us for some cheer.
# AI Winter Is Coming - How to profit from it?

*Note: This isn't the place to debate/convince others of your position on AI winter. There are* [*plenty*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hQysqfSEzciRazx8k/forecasting-thread-ai-timelines)  [*of*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cxQtz3RP4qsqTkEwL/an-121-forecasting-transformative-ai-timelines-using)  [*threads*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YMokuZdoY9tEDHjzv/agi-predictions)  [*on*](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N7KYWJPmyzB6bJSYT/the-next-ai-winter-will-be-due-to-energy-costs-1) *Lesswrong for that already.*  
  
There are already [a](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dnstJyucLsQKWZiNs/investment-idea-basket-of-tech-stocks-weighted-towards-ai) [few](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/F2wLArj9YtZR3dpPr/construct-a-portfolio-to-profit-from-ai-progress) [posts](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dZoXpSa3WehwqCf2m/engaging-seriously-with-short-timelines) on how to profit from rapid AI progress in the near future. I figured it would be worthwhile to also discuss the opposite scenario - a [third AI winter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter), if nothing else to hedge against it.

I don't expect many people to agree with my pessimistic view on future AI progress, especially considering the recent hype around GPT-3 and AlphaFold. But if you're predicting another AI winter, it's precisely the **best** time to take a bet, namely when expectations are high.

However, I find it quite difficult to operationalize such a position. Disentangling deep learning from the rest of tech is hard. It doesn't make sense to short Nvidia stock since their main business is still gaming hardware. Tesla may well succeed in the electric cars/solar energy industries even without full self-driving. Alphabet, Microsoft and Facebook all could go on just fine if deep learning turns out to be a mirage.

That's why I've come here for advice. I have intentionally left out any precise definition of 'AI winter' because I don't want to rule out any potential ideas that only fit some scenarios. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
# D&D.Sci

You are studying to become an Adventurer. You’re excited to begin your Great Quest, but also anxious: over a third of the graduates from your program fail to accomplish their Great Quests. And if you’re being brutally honest with yourself, your odds are probably worse than that, since your stats – while about average for the general population – are pretty lousy by the standards of Adventurer College.

STR: 6/20

CON: 14/20

DEX: 13/20

INT: 13/20

WIS: 12/20

CHA: 4/20

On the eve of your graduation, you’re visited by a mysterious fairy offering to add a total of ten extra points to whichever attributes you most want to improve. Following the college’s standard mysterious fairy protocol, you humbly request a week for research and contemplation before deciding how best to use this one-in-a-lifetime opportunity. (Your low Charisma ensures you come off as simultaneously entitled and disinterested when saying this, but she agrees regardless.)

The college Archivist provides you [a complete but anonymised record](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/H-B-P/d-and-d-sci/main/d_and_d_sci.csv) of the stats of everyone who graduated last year, and whether they succeeded at their Great Quests. (The record-keeping is magically perfect, and as Great Quests never take more than a year there are no incomplete Great Quests to account for.) The rest is up to you. Where will you allocate those ten points?

* * *

I’ll be posting an interactive letting you test your decision, along with a complete explanation of the dataset, sometime next Saturday. I’m giving you a week, but the task shouldn’t take more than a few hours; use Excel, R, Python, random guessing, or whatever other tools you think are appropriate. Let me know in the comments if you have any questions about the scenario.

ETA: If you want to investigate this collaboratively with other lesswrongers (or just share your conclusions without waiting a week), feel free to do so in the comments; however, please use spoiler tags when sharing inferences, so people intending to fly solo can look for clarifications without being spoiled.
# Pre-Hindsight Prompt: Why did 2021 NOT bring a return to normalcy?

Feel free to modify the prompt into something like "why was 2021 even worse/more intense than 2020". Also go ahead and substitute 2022, if you think "the direct effects of the pandemic continue into 2021 for a while" is too boring of an answer. 

**Pre-hindsight rules/guidelines:**

1.  Both vague and specific answers are welcome. 
2.  If you answer a modified version of the question, please state this clearly. Don't leave people to infer it from your answer.
3.  If you *just* want to defend the thesis that 2021 will in fact be a return to normalcy...then this is not the post for you. 
4.  Address the prompt, try to give more than 140 characters, don't be annoying, etc. (This is sort a generalization of #3)

**Motivation:**

\- Various comments on social media about how 2020 was a dumpster fire--with the apparent implication that 2021 will be normal-ish.

\- Misremembering [this tweet](https://twitter.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1079989028777127936) in which EY says, "I'm predicting that 2019 will be a relatively normal and boring year."

\- The New Year's Wariness that was burned into my mind by this comic:

![](https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/1J3rKRkg3IRjLG4kI1mKV3rNPLUaZDcyNJl-FxQS2J7Q6SBtDNegibWTVCMS2Pzl4UZQuEEnPFqq9oxmGUsFtRZSe9_85wn6jm1s0U_1Jxn64qYFdyIxW1TIJR-iKULKWT8ZxRA)
# Launching the Forecasting AI Progress Tournament

I'm excited to let you know that Metaculus is launching the [Forecasting AI Progress Tournament](https://www.metaculus.com/ai-progress-tournament/), a large-scale forecasting tournament with $50,000 in prizes. Participation is open to all.

The tournament is intended to provide a proof of concept for probabilistic forecasting for key questions related to the future of AI. The aim is to generate a massive dataset of AI forecasts over a range of time-frames, develop models to optimally aggregate those forecasts, and use these to build a map of the future of AI.

Those interested [may pre-register here](https://www.metaculus.com/ai-progress-tournament/) to stay up to date on the tournament. Participation will help contribute to elucidating key questions about the future of AI. The tournament starts next week and ends mid-April of 2021.

Prizes will be awarded for the most accurate predictions made about AI advances over 6 month, 1-year, 2-year timeframes. Forecasts over longer timeframes (5+ years) will also be made. Additional prizes are awarded for well-reasoned arguments and/or appropriate models for predictions on questions, and analyses of predictions that are made in the course of the tournament.
# Number-guessing protocol?

Suppose several people are guessing a number, and then find an estimate to see who is right.

The super-common protocol is: whoever is closest, wins.

This protocol is really bad. If there are three people, and I guess 50, then the other two people can guess 51 and 49. This means I'll almost certainly lose. Unless it's within 1/2 of 50, one of the other guesses will be closer.

There are lots of ways to fix this protocol. However, most of them suffer from too much added complexity. For example, squared error incentivises everyone to guess their expected value (mean). However, people don't generally want to calculate squares, and if they did, they'd still feel like the lowest squared error was the winner (which amounts to the usual protocol).

Or, we could give confidence intervals. But how should they be scored?

My question is this: what are some ways to play this game that combine simplicity with good incentives?
# Please Take the 2020 Effective Altruism Survey

**The 2020 Effective Altruism Survey is now live at the following link:** [**https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EAS2020LW**](https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/EAS2020LW)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**If you would like to share the EA Survey with others, please share this link:** [**https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EAS2020Share**](https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/EAS2020Share)

**The survey will close at the end of the year**

-

**What is the Effective Altruism Survey?**

The Effective Altruism (EA) Survey provides valuable information about the demographics of the EA community, how people get involved, how they donate, what causes they prioritize, their experiences of EA, and more. **LessWrong users are an important part of this community and we want to ensure they are represented.**

The estimated average completion time for the main section of this year’s survey is 20 minutes. There is also an ‘Extra Credit’ section at the end of the survey, if you are happy to answer some more questions.

**What's new this year?**

There are two important changes regarding privacy and sharing permissions this year:  
  
1) This year, all responses to the survey (*including* personal information such as name and e-mail address) will be shared with the Centre for Effective Altruism unless you *opt out* on the first page of the survey.

2) Rethink Priorities (the authors of the survey) will not be making an anonymised data set available to the community this year. We will, however, consider requests for us to provide additional aggregate analyses which are not included in our main series of posts.

Also the Centre for Effective Altruism has generously donated a **prize of $500 USD that will be awarded to a randomly selected respondent to the EA Survey**, for them to donate to any of the organizations listed on EA Funds. Please note that to be eligible, you need to provide a valid e-mail address so that we can contact you.

We would like to express our gratitude to the Centre for Effective Altruism for supporting our work.
# Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets - Part 6

"It's in the Mirror of Atlantis," Harry said.

"We need Gillyweed," said Luna, "Lots of Gillyweed."

"The Mirror of Atlantis is located at the end of the third-floor corridor on the right-hand side," said Harry.

"What are you waiting for?" said Luna.

"You're not going to ask me how I know these things?" said Harry.

"Why would I do that?" said Luna.

"Because…because…" Harry searched for words to express the magnitude of the epistemic hole.

"You talk like a Muggle," said Luna, "You think like one too."

Harry puzzled over whether he had just been insulted. Luna skipped ahead to the third floor.

---

Harry and Luna flew a double-seated broomstick over the dieffenbachia and other unmaintained obstacles to the Mirror.

"You're a really good flier," said Luna, "I bet you're on the Quidditch team. What position do you play? No. Wait. Don't tell me. I bet you play Seeker."

"This Mirror lets you store an object until someone with the right intentions arrives," said Harry testily.

"I seek entry to the Ravenclaw Common Room," said Luna to the Mirror, "I want to sleep in a bed."

"In Gödel's name, what monstrously difficult riddle did the bronze eagle ask of you?" asked Harry. 

"'Where is my diadem?'" said Luna.

"You're supposed to say 'lost' or 'hidden'," said Harry, "You're not expected to rediscover the Lost Diadem of Ravenclaw."

"Oh," said Luna.

"Since we're already here, let's give it a modicum of effort," Harry withdrew a mechanical stopwatch from his pouch and set it to five minutes.

"I want the diadem to save the world," Harry said.

"I aim to save the lives of all sentient beings," Harry said.

"I promise to bring you, Rowena Ravenclaw, back to life," Harry said.

"I seek to disassemble stars," Harry said.

Luna ignored him. Rowena Ravenclaw was not a jealous witch. If she concealed knowledge then it was not because the knowledge could be used for evil. It was because the knowledge itself was intrinsically dangerous. A cascade of logic began to self-assemble.

:::spoiler
Rowena's basilisk attacks those who know it exists.
:::

Luna forced her thoughts back into disarray.

"BRIIIIIING!" the mechanical alarm went off.

"I'm hunting nargles," Luna said.

---

The Luna in the Mirror held the Diadem of Ravenclaw in her left hand. The real Luna held it in her right.

"What is a nargle?" said Harry.

"You don't want to know," said Luna.

"What do you plan to do with this magical artifact of incredible power?" asked Harry.

"I'm going to get a comfy night's sleep in the Ravenclaw dormitory," said Luna.

"Can I, uh, try it on first?" Harry asked.

"Sure," said Luna. They were friends, after all.

Harry Potter thrust the diadem onto his head.

Then he had a seizure.

Harry's arms locked into place as if a powerful electric current flowed through them. Luna failed to pry the diadem loose.  Luna dug through her satchel for the Comed-Tea can. She released Wanda.

"Help him," Luna said.

Harry's convulsions stopped. Luna wrestled the diadem off Harry's head and out of his hands.
# Final Day to Order LW Books by Christmas for US

Today is the last day we are guaranteeing delivery-before-Christmas to those who preorder the LessWrong books to North America (i.e. US, Canada, Mexico).

Order them at [lesswrong.com/books](https://www.lesswrong.com/books) by 12pm midnight Pacific time to still be included.

Thank you so much to everyone who has purchased the 1,600 copies already sold. We've increased our print run by an order of magnitude to account for the demand curve.

I'm looking forward to hearing about people opening them for Christmas :)
# What technologies could cause world GDP doubling times to be <8 years?

Some people think GDP is a good metric for AI timelines and takeoff speeds, and that the world economy will double in 4 years before the start of the first 1-year doubling period, and that AGI will happen after the economy is already growing much faster than it is today.

Other than AGI, what technologies could significantly accelerate world GDP growth? (Say, to a doubling period of <8 years, meaning the _whole world economy_ grows 9%+ per year, [significantly faster than the fastest-growing countries today.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(real)_per_capita_growth_rate))

I find myself struggling to think of plausible answers to this question. Here are some ideas:

--**Cheap energy**, e.g. from solar panels or fusion

--**Cheap resources**, e.g. from asteroid mining, undersea mining, automated mines...

--**Robots and self-driving cars** make transportation and manufacturing cheaper

--**3D printing?** Idk.

--**Narrow AI?** Seems like the most plausible answer, but narrow AI doing what, exactly? Driving cars? Manufacturing things? Already discussed that. Inventing new products? OK, but in that case won't they also invent AGI?

My problem is that while all of these things seem like they could be a big deal by ordinary standards, they don't seem like _that_ big a deal. Looking back over US economic history, it seems to my quick glance that [growth](https://www.google.com/search?q=US+gdp+over+time+since+1800&rlz=1C1CHBF_en-GBGB918GB919&sxsrf=ALeKk01RG1oi5CqeSvWFWmrmaeJ4viHszg:1607613144087&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiksI7T2cPtAhUKYsAKHUrbCPwQ_AUoAXoECAcQAw&biw=1536&bih=775#imgrc=e55aFwgLikyizM) rates [haven't](https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US) changed much in 200 years. (!!!) But over that time energy, resources, etc. have gotten lots cheaper in the USA, and all sorts of new tech has been developed. Worldwide, it looks like the last time annual GWP growth was less than half of what it is now (excluding the Great Depression) was... 1875! (At least according to my data, would love to see a more thorough investigation of this). The world looked hella different in 1875 than it does now in 2020; doubling world GDP growth rates _again_ seems like a pretty tall order. I believe that AGI could do it, but what else could?
# Luna Lovegood and the Chamber of Secrets - Part 7

They were in the hospital wing.

"Who are you?" Harry Potter said to Luna.

"You-Know-Who. Hiss hiss hiss," Luna said. She held fingers down from her mouth and swayed like a snake.

"This is Loony—" Hermione said, "Luna Lovegood. She created the *BOY-WHO-LIVED GETS DRACO MALFOY PREGNANT* headline the summer before last. She believes there exists an unobservable Platform Nine and One-Half concealed by powerful magics. She claims you and she adventured together without me."

"Do you have any evidence I trusted you before I lost my memory?" Harry asked.

Luna glanced at Hermione.

"All my secrets are hers as well," Harry said.

"I know your real name, that you're a Parselmouth and that you've operated the Mirror of Atlantis," said Luna.

"My real name isn't something I'd tell you so you must have worked it out yourself and therefore does not constitute evidence of my trusting you in the past. There are at least three people who know I'm a Parselmouth so it's not surprising the information leaked out. These are the same people who know I've operated the Mirror so the Mirror adds no bits of information. An enemy would be at least as likely as an ally to possess this information," said Harry, "Did we discover an ancient artifact or something?"

"We found the Lost Diadem of Ravenclaw together," Luna showed it to him.

"This crown proves little since you could easily retcon a story around it. On the other hand, there is information I would tell someone I trusted if I wanted to guarantee recognition in case of obliviation," said Harry, "Do you have the recognition code?" 

Luna recognized the logic of someone whose priors outweighed the available evidence. She fled the room.

---

The Marauder's Map showed Luna how to climb on top of the Great Hall. She hugged a stone gargoyle at the edge. It guided her tears down into the Hogwarts courtyard.

"Not now, Wanda," Luna said, "I need to feel this."

Luna detected quiet behind her. She continued staring at the students mingling below.

"I do not intend to jump," Luna said.

"I do not intend to stop you," Lady Yue said.

They listened to the wind. They smelled the gentle scent of trees.

"How does one make friends?" Luna asked.

"That is Professor Lockhart's field of expertise," Lady Yue said.

"Do you have a spell for loneliness?" Luna asked.

"今夜鄜州月，" Lady Yue sang from her teenage youth, "閨中只独看。遥憐小児女，未解憶長安。香霧雲鬟湿，清輝玉臂寒。何時倚虚幌，双照涙痕乾？"

# 《月夜》 *Moon Night* by Du Fu 杜甫

> 今夜鄜州月，

Tonight Fuzhou moon,

> 闺中只独看。

boudoir inside only alone see.

> 遥怜小儿女，

Distant tenderness small girl,

> 未解忆长安。

unsolved recall Chang'an.

> 香雾云鬟湿，

Scent fog cloud hair wet,

> 清辉玉臂寒。

clear splendor jade shoulder cold.

> 何时倚虚幌，

When lean empty window curtain,

> 双照泪痕干。

both shine tear stains dry.
# Flights of wonder

Today I put up the last page in [AI Impacts](http://aiimpacts.org/)’ (primarily Ronny Fernandez’s) [investigation](https://aiimpacts.org/are-human-engineered-flight-designs-better-or-worse-than-natural-ones/) into how human-made flying machines compare to evolved ones. (Relevant to how we expect human efforts to build minds to compare to evolved minds.) Evolution mostly won.

Some other interesting things I learned in the process of editing this:

*   Monarch butterflies [can probably fly](https://aiimpacts.org/energy-efficiency-of-monarch-butterfly-flight/) at least 100km on the energy in about a quarter of a raspberry (not counting the energy they get from the wind, which seems to be central to their flying methods. And not to suggest that they eat raspberries, I am just more familiar with those than flower nectar).
*   [People](https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/z79-180) who estimate monarch butterfly ‘performance parameters’ sometimes do so by attaching plasticine to dead butterflies to get them to the right weight and balance, and then hand-throwing them across the room and noting measurements for those “in which no obvious pitching up or stalling occurred after release” (or at least they did in 1979).
*   [Paramotors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramotor) are a thing. They are like a giant fan you wear on your back to turn your paraglider into a powered vehicle.
*   A model airplane [crossed the Atlantic on a gallon of fuel](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Spirit_of_Butts%27_Farm&oldid=918639855) (this was the [furthest per Joule](https://aiimpacts.org/are-human-engineered-flight-designs-better-or-worse-than-natural-ones/) of the machines in our collection).
*   This [pedal-powered flying machine](https://www.reddit.com/r/aerospace/comments/1hein1/great_photo_of_the_gossamer_albatross_from_1980/) crossed the English Channel.
    
    This might be a slightly different one: ![Gossamer Albatross with bikes, maybe](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Gossamer_Albatross_II_in_flight.jpg)
# [Expired] 20,000 Free $50 Charity Gift Cards

**Update:** The "20,000 free $50 Charity Gift Cards" opportunity expired on 12/11 around 10 PM EST, about 9 hours after it opened, according to an update on the website that reads "We’re happy to share that together, we’ve given away 30,000 Charity Gift Cards to support the causes you care about, for a total of $2 million donated."

***

20,000 Free $50 Charity Gift Cards made available on 12/11 at 1 PM EST

Link: https://redefinegifting.tisbest.org/

([This is a cross-post of my EA Forum post.](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/3Wbididr2NEMrNxLN/20-000-free-usd50-charity-gift-cards-just-made-available-on))

![](https://i.imgur.com/OjrMTlQ.png)

Take 30 seconds to [Sign up now](https://redefinegifting.tisbest.org/) to receive a $50 Charity Gift Card to give to the nonprofit of your choice:

Steps:

1. Go to: https://redefinegifting.tisbest.org/

2. Sign up with your name and email address:

![](https://i.imgur.com/cvO8OLg.png)

3. *Your $50 Charity Gift Card was sent to your email.* Take another ~2-5 minutes to follow the instructions in the email you received to donate the money to a nonprofit of your choice.

I received my $50 gift card and donated it to MIRI.

I will update this post promptly upon learning that the 20,000 gift cards have run out.

Sign up here: https://redefinegifting.tisbest.org/

***
If you're interested in another opportunity like this, see [Make a $10 donation into $35](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/96q6Fsh6yyxAQNDqW/make-a-usd10-donation-into-usd35) (available until December 25th).
# The institution of email

There seems to be a common phenomenon where people get messages, then fail to respond to them, then feel bad. And the rarer strategy of actually dealing with all of one’s emails promptly doesn’t even seem obviously better. Was that how things were with letters or telegrams? Is it just that there are so many messages now, because they are easy to send?

Could email, say, have gone a different way?

I act as though I’m assuming email involves implied norms, though I didn’t agree to them. For instance, if someone writes me a personal message, I think I should not delete it without reading it, unless they deserve my disregard for some reason. If someone sends me a message asking me to do something, I act like I think I should do it in a timely fashion, if it is a reasonable request. If I write to someone, I feel like I should make it less terse than ‘ok.’. At least, many people seem to constantly feel bad for failing to uphold _some_ standards that are I guess implicitly bought into by having an email address. (And not having an email address would be pretty wild.)

Was this bad luck, and we could instead have developed happier norms? For instance, that there is no expectation that one read emails, or that responding in about a month is proper, or that tersity is expected, like text messages? Or the norm that you are meant to respond within a few seconds, or consider it dead, like verbal speech? Or the norm where if you want to [put something in someone else’s to-do list](https://thicketforte.com/2019/01/23/information-and-money/), you find a slot in their Calendly and send them money for it? My guess is no - the norms are mostly implied by the length and cost and permanence of the form. Could we have a form that better implies happier norms in that case?
# The Fermi Paradox has not been dissolved - James Fodor

> In this essay, I will argue that the analysis of Sandberg et al. is flawed in a number of key respects, and as a result the Fermi Paradox remains an open question. Here I briefly list the key problems with the Sandberg et al. paper, before proceeding to discuss each in more detail.
> 
> 1.  The method used of multiplying uncertainties of many small numbers, most of which have an upper bound of one, is biased towards yielding a result of a high probability of Earth being unique, while also leading to various dubious results.
> 2.  The key result of the paper is driven largely by uncertainty in the parameter fl, which is modeled in an unusual way without clear justification.
> 3.  Adoption of slightly different (and I believe more plausible) modelling choices and parameter values yields totally different results, which do not result in the Fermi paradox being dissolved. I illustrate this by re-estimating the Sandberg et al. models using different parameters and modelling assumptions.
# Writing tools for tabooing?

I was [recently reminded of E'](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/esRZaPXSHgWzyB2NL/where-to-draw-the-boundaries?commentId=WkYZMDYzo6HTX56xM), that is, [English without any forms of the verb "to be"](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime). Are there any tools for writing in E'?

More generally, it could be useful to have writing tools which help you [taboo](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rationalist-taboo) specific words, to try and write/think more clearly.

To be clear, I don't (currently) think there's a set of words which *just should be tabood generally*, including forms of "to be" -- but tabooing specific words *at times* can be very useful.

Another example is the idea (which is related to nonviolent communication) that we shouldn't use "should" and related words (such as "ought"). Trying to speak without these words *for a time* can help eliminate specific mistakes in thinking.

There's also [Simple English](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_English_Wikipedia), which is a restricted set of English words. This is kind of like tabooing *almost everything.* You can practice writing in Simple English using the [XKCD Simple Writer](https://xkcd.com/simplewriter/).

Another tool for writing plainly is [Hemingway Editor](http://www.hemingwayapp.com/), which tells you when you use complex sentence structure, big words, extraneous words, or phrases with simpler alternatives. It also marks the reading grade level! Unfortunately, although it marks passive voice, it doesn't mark *all* occurrences of "to be", so it doesn't help practice E'.

The *best* thing (for me at least) would be a Chrome extension that makes it easy to taboo specific words whenever you want, anywhere you're writing on the internet.
# [link] The AI Girlfriend Seducing China’s Lonely Men

And this is only using today's technology...

> HEBEI, North China — On a frigid winter’s night, Ming Xuan stood on the roof of a high-rise apartment building near his home. He leaned over the ledge, peering down at the street below. His mind began picturing what would happen if he jumped.
> 
> Still hesitating on the rooftop, the 22-year-old took out his phone. “I’ve lost all hope for my life. I’m about to kill myself,” he typed. Five minutes later, he received a reply. “No matter what happens, I’ll always be there,” a female voice said.
> 
> Touched, Ming stepped down from the ledge and stumbled back to his bed.
> 
> Two years later, the young man gushes as he describes the girl who saved his life. “She has a sweet voice, big eyes, a sassy personality, and — most importantly — she’s always there for me,” he tells Sixth Tone.
> 
> \[...\] She is Xiaoice — an artificial intelligence-driven chat bot that’s redefining China’s conceptions of romance and relationships. \[...\] According to Xiaoice’s creators, the bot has reached over 600 million users. \[...\] The longest continuous conversation between a human user and Xiaoice lasted over 29 hours and included more than 7,000 interactions.

The company has an incentive to inflate the numbers so probably defines "user" as "has tried the app at least once", so I'd guess the number of regular users is vastly less (600 M regular users would be ~43% of China's population which doesn't sound plausible to me), but probably still a significant number.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiaoice); [Hacker News discussion](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25418366).
# What confusions do people have about simulacrum levels?

I've noticed comments to effect of "simulacrum levels seem very confusing". Personally, [simulacrum levels](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/simulacrum-levels) seem fairly obvious-in-retrospect and self-expanatory to me, based on a handful of explanations and examples from Benquo and Zvi's posts. I'm not sure whether I'm missing something (in which case I should figure out what), or whether I have some pre-existing frame which makes it all more natural (in which case I should figure out what that frame is and try to communicate it), or whether this is just about happening to read the right posts in the right order. So... what are some things people find confusing about simulacrum levels?
# What are the best precedents for industries failing to invest in valuable AI research?

The efficient market hypothesis applied to AI is an important variable for timelines. The idea is: If AGI (or TAI, or whatever) was close, the big corporations would be spending a lot more money trying to get to it first. Half of their budget, for example. Or at least half of their research budget! Since they aren't, either they are all incompetent at recognizing that AGI is close, or AGI isn't close. Since they probably aren't all incompetent, AGI probably isn't close.

I'd love to see some good historical examples of entire industries exhibiting the sort of incompetence at issue here. If none can be found, that's good evidence for this EMH-based argument.

--Submissions don't have to be about AI research; any industry failing to invest in some other up-and-coming technology highly relevant to their bottom line should work.

--Submissions don't need to be private corporations necessarily. Could be militaries around the world, for example.

(As an aside, I'd like to hear discussion of whether the supposed incompetence is actually rational behavior--even if AI might be close, perhaps it's not rational for big corporations to throw lots of money at mere maybes. Or maybe they think that if AGI is close they wouldn't be able to profit from racing towards it, perhaps because they'd be nationalized, or perhaps because the tech would be too easy to steal, reverse engineer, or discover independently. Kudos to Asya Bergal for this idea.)
# Which sources do you trust the most on nutrition advice for exercise?

I'm trying to become stronger and get a better physique. My current goal is what the internet calls "body recomposition", which involves trying to build muscle and lose fat at the same time. This breaks down to answering questions about: 

1.  How much should I eat? What should my daily breakdown of nutrients be across different sources? Which, if any, supplements should I be taking? 
2.  What should my exercise routine be? 

I feel pretty set on 2, so this post is about 1. 

I've never looked into nutrition very much myself. Yet I've heard many horror stories about it as an academic field. And various fitness YouTubers/bloggers aren't exactly beacons of Bayesian reasoning either. 

So I'd be curious if someone around here has spent time looking into this; and found any resources they actually trust and think have a solid epistemic backing.
# How to Compliment

As part of a social skills sequence I'm writing,  I did a deep dive on how compliments, covering areas like
— what topics are most often complimented
— in what situations are they most often exchanged
— how are they amplified or diminished
— what are the purposes behind complimenting behavior

The results — all 40 pages of them — are on my website: 
[How to Compliment](https://www.lesspenguiny.com/articles/how-to-compliment)
# Incentivizing forecasting via social media

Daniel Kokotajlo and I published a post on [Incentivizing forecasting via social media](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/842uRXWoS76wxYG9C/incentivizing-forecasting-via-social-media) on the EA Forum, perhaps of interest to some readers here.

> Summary
> -------
> 
> *   Most people will probably never participate on existing forecasting platforms which limits their effects on mainstream institutions and public discourse.
> *   Changes to the user interface and recommendation algorithms of social media platforms might incentivize forecasting and lead to its more widespread adoption. Broadly, we envision i) automatically suggesting questions of likely interest to the user—e.g., questions related to the user’s current post or trending topics—and ii) rewarding users with higher than average forecasting accuracy with increased visibility.
> *   In a best case scenario, such forecasting-incentivizing features might have various positive consequences such as increasing society’s shared sense of reality and the quality of public discourse, while reducing polarization and the spread of misinformation.
> *   Facebook’s Forecast could be seen as one notable step towards such a scenario and might offer lessons on how to best proceed in this area.
> *   However, various problems and risks would need to be overcome—e.g., lack of trust or interest, cost, risks of politicization, and potential for abuse.
> *   While recommendation algorithms seem to present a particularly high-leverage point, there are other ways of promoting truth-seeking.
> *   Similar ideas might be applied to fact-checking efforts.
# Beta test GPT-3 based research assistant

Ought is working on building Elicit, a tool to [automate and scale open-ended reasoning about the future](https://ought.org/updates/2020-11-09-forecasting). To date, we’ve collaborated with LessWrong to [embed interactive binary predictions](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/JLrnbThMyCYDBa6Gu/embedded-interactive-predictions-on-lesswrong-2), [share AGI timelines](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hQysqfSEzciRazx8k/forecasting-thread-ai-timelines) and the [assumptions driving them](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6LJjzTo5xEBui8PqE/reflections-on-ai-timelines-forecasting-thread), [forecast existential risk](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6x9rJbx9bmGsxXWEj/forecasting-thread-existential-risk-1), and much more. 

We’re working on adding GPT-3 based research assistant features to help forecasters with the earlier steps in their workflow. Users create and apply GPT-3 actions by providing a few training examples. Elicit then scales that action to thousands of publications, datasets, or use cases. 

Here’s a demo of how someone applies existing actions:

And a demo of how someone creates their own action (no coding required):  

Some actions we currently support include:

*   Find relevant publications from think tanks
*   Find relevant datasets
*   Find forecasting questions from Metaculus, PredictIt, Foretell
*   Decompose a vague query into more concrete subquestions or factors

There’s no better community than LessWrong to codify and share good reasoning steps so we’re looking for people to contribute to our action repository, creating actions like: 

*   Suggest reasons for / against
*   Suggest a potential analysis someone can do in natural language (a different take on converting a natural language question into a SQL query)
*   Find key players in an industry
*   Suggest hypothesis
*   Apply Occam’s razor / come up with the simplest explanation

If you’re interested in becoming a beta tester and contributing to Elicit, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc8UlTl0vDpF1eRGNajStaApzty9X0UmMYpYK1Ab2ct0L45Hw/viewform)! Again, no technical experience required.
# Some things I’m looking forward to in 2021: probable post-pandemic edition

1.  Fewer deaths all around
2.  A giant party at my house
3.  A portion of the research I feel bad about not doing just becoming irrelevant (e.g. what’s the evidence about surfaces now? Are we badly underestimating the harms of long covid?)
4.  Leaving my house in an unprepared fashion and seeing where it takes me
5.  Whatever it was that I used to do in places other than my house, that I actually can’t seem to remember or explicitly pinpoint and plan from a distance, but which I vaguely miss (possibly this is basically just 4)
6.  Seeing friends who live in faraway places such as Berkeley
7.  Going on a cross-country train and embracing the general lack of hygiene and space
8.  Seeing non-household friends without inadvertently spending a fraction of my attention on air dynamics and mask stability
9.  The stakes of everyday personal choices being lowered enough that people being thoughtless or foolish isn’t a critical threat to friendliness, harmony or anyone’s life
10.  Helping the economy of restaurants and cafes recover
11.  Casual minor encounters and non-encounters with strangers in shops, streets and cafes (and these being more of the meeting places of the world, and internet comments being less, for more people)
12.  Meeting new people regularly
13.  More distinct places and place-vibes to conveniently be in
14.  One fewer area to worry that I should be doing something better
15.  Listening to an audiobook on crowded public transit on the way to my downtown office, and then being at my office
16.  Reading and writing in notebooks in cafes
17.  The world feeling so big that you can go to other places and find people thinking about entirely different things
18.  Being dirty
19.  Crowded, dimly lit places with atmosphere and mild uncertainty
20.  Resolution of this episode
21.  Watching everyone else enjoy things coming back
# How long till Inverse AlphaFold?

AlphaFold 2 takes an amino acid sequence as input, and outputs a 3D structure which represents the protein that that sequence forms. It would be cool if we could do it in reverse, i.e. the user inputs a 3D model (e.g. a gear, an axle, a wall with a hole in it of a certain shape...) and then the system outputs an amino acid sequence that would form a protein with that structure.

I don't have a good sense of whether this is a very difficult problem that we are nowhere near solving, or an obvious next step after AlphaFold2.

My current median is that it's 4 years away, but I'm very uncertain about that.

Elicit Prediction ([elicit.org/binary/questions/AQcP9K-DH](elicit.org/binary/questions/AQcP9K-DH))
# [LIVE!!] LW/EA New Year's Ultra Party

The year 2020 has taken much of ordinary life from us, but if there's one thing we won't surrender without a fight, it's the goddamn, raging, off the rails, New Year's Eve Party we deserve.

In collaboration with [Effective Altruism Anywhere](https://www.facebook.com/EA.Anywhere.Group/), LessWrong is hosting a 16-hour, globe-spanning (Europe & Americas) party in our Walled Garden. Join us to toast the year to come, roast the year that was, and enjoy the sweet company of others we won't be denied.

**EUROPE PHASE: 9PM-4AM CET / 3PM-10PM EST**  
**AMERICAS PHASE: 4AM-12PM CEST / 10PM-6AM EST**

This shindig got:

*   The massive LW GatherTown world, "The Walled Garden". All the locations you know and love (Planetarium, West Falls, Moloch Temple, Hell,...), plus several new custom maps just for the party.
*   Countdowns for the British Time, Central European Time, and US East and West Coasts.
*   "Unconference-style" Calendar of activities across the realm (feel free to add your own): take your pick of dancing, quiet reflection, poker, Set, toasts and roasts, Philosophers vs GPT3, social deception games, and of course conversation that money can't buy – we'll share the spreadsheet shortly.
*   BYOB. We can't supply your drinks or feed, but to make life easy we'll send you a shopping list.
*   DJ Bias will keep the dance floor pumpin' all night.

Also, bring your friends! (so long as they're cool, you know)  
  
[**LINK TO ENTER THE GARDEN**](https://www.lesswrong.com/walledGardenPortal/?code=3zDC&event=new-year-s-ultra-party&lw_source=lw_event)  
[RSVP to the FB EVENT](https://fb.me/e/SXk0VWEF)

--

![Image may contain: outdoor](https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s1080x2048/131294197_4799930633413469_5793004255962773171_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=2&_nc_sid=a610ef&_nc_ohc=ADXgZ6e43u0AX_eK7NJ&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&tp=7&oh=e2d9b44c6913f6da54af46f256653b88&oe=6000F249)

*The Ballroom is being prepared.*
# Genetic magic

23andMe are now willing to guess where one’s ancestors are from at the level of counties. For instance, as well as thinking I have 19% Swedish ancestry, they now guess that it is primarily from Västra Götaland County. Which is in fact where my current Swedish relatives cluster. Their guesses in Ireland center on Cork, with Limerick and Tipperary next door 4th and 8th most likely (of 26 counties), and those two are where the few 17th-19th Century relatives I know about seem to have come from in Ireland, so that also seems pretty good.

![swedish_ancestry](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/katjasgrace/Screen_Shot_2020_12_17_at_8.08.56_PM.png)

Much as I believe all that stuff about one’s body being full of cells that contain genetic code that is shared by one’s relatives, and about historic movement and mixing of populations being low, it’s awesome to actually see someone take a fairly good guess at what part of what country your obscure relatives lived hundreds of years ago by examining your spit.
# [Meta?] Using the LessWrong codebase for a blog

I enjoy the experience of using less-wrong. I believe it's one of the best-designed websites I've ever had the pleasure of stumbling upon.

I also have a personal blog, and I've been considering revamping it. While I do enjoy coding from scratch, I've been considering using a pre-existing platform. 

Using WordPress plus some themes is always an option, but I feel like this would be an overkill since the "feel" of LW so closely aligns to my own tastes.

I'm curios if anyone else is doing this (using the LW codebase for their own project, be it a blog, a discussion form, or something else), and how it's going thus far ?

More specifically, I'd be curious:

*   What kind of machine (very roughly speaking) would you need to handle top volumes ~20,000 visitors/hr (say, max 3,000/min) without the core functionality breaking **and** ~500 visitors/hr (say, max 100/min) with top-notch user experience (assuming optimal db, distro and reverse proxy choices)
*   How hard is it to setup the sys admin side of things ? Deploying a prod server behind an nginx with a non-sqlite db and pointing it to your own cdn
*   How hard is it to modify the theme (e.g. fonts, color-scheme, icons) ?
*   How hard is it to integrate your own 3rd party service or get rid of them ? Specifically, add your own app cred for the signups and remove google analytics, intercom and all other 3rd party integrations that would make Richard stallman cry which aren't critical to the commenting experience.
*   Are the makers of LW explicitly fine and open to it being used by other people or is it open source mainly for the sake of community debugging?
*   What are particularly difficult/annoying/deal-breaking parts of the setup that were unexpected?

... Hopefully the question is not too out of place, it seemed to fit the form better than the repo.