trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
What are some beautiful, rationalist sounds?
by DirectedEvolution — 2021-08-06T01:22:38.334Z

I loved jacobjacob's post from which I've stolen the title, format, and some of the language of this post. The goal of this post is to build a comment section containing links to lovely music or other sounds, possibly along with lyrics or stories that highlight why it's directly connected to the theme of rationality.

Let's celebrate the Art of Rationality - this time, with a joyful noise!

Rules

Each comment should contain a link to a free recording, and a description.

The description should show why the music or sound is directly connected to the Art of Rationality. No bare links!

Recordings should be somehow relate to the Art of Rationality, as practiced on LessWrong.

Allowed: Einstein on the Beach; Songs of the Humpback Whale; AI-generated cyperpunk music; Getting Better by the Beatles.

Not allowed: Random techno; Beethoven's 9th symphony; music selected just because of how hypermodernist and dissonant it is; songs that happen to be titled "Rationality" but have no other obvious rationalist content.

These standards can be loose as long as the choice is well-justified! I expect that many pieces will need some creative interpretation to make the connection clear.

Recordings should be something you could appreciate independently of their connection to rationality.

Allowed: Pithopraka, a piece from the mathematical composer Xenakis's ouvre, inspired by the statistical mechanics of gases, that happens to be relatively accessible; radio emissions from all the plants in the solar system.

Not allowed: ST/10 by Xenakis, which is rather disorienting and harsh; The sound of a dialup modem; the theme song from Pinky and the Brain; podcast episodes and recordings of speeches; X-ray data from a black hole translated into sound.

Ideally, this is music that can benefit from focused attention, but could also be enjoyed playing in the background (perhaps on repeat, in the case of shorter clips). It should be at least a few minutes long.

Don't be a jerk, but do note if you think something is a major conflict with a virtue.

No need to be a pretentious music critic, but if a composer was writing an explicitly religious composition, or a singer is noted for their anti-science attitude, that's fine to point out.

I'm not certain if this will work as well as jacobjacob's original post, but I thought I'd give it a try!
Traps of Formalization in Deconfusion
by adamShimi — 2021-08-05T22:40:50.267Z

Introduction

The Depression of Deconfusion

It had made perfect sense to you. It just clicked, and clarified so much. But now you’re doubting again. Suddenly, your argument doesn’t feel so tight. Or maybe you described it to some colleague, who pointed out a weak joint. Or the meaning of your terms is disagreed upon, and so your point is either trivially wrong or trivially right.

Now you don’t have anything.

In truth, something probably came out of it all. You know that this line of reasoning fails, for one. Not that it’s of use to anyone except you, as you can’t even extract a crystallized reason for the failure. Maybe it salvageable, although you don’t see how. Maybe there’s no way to show what you endeavored to show, for the decidedly pedestrian reason that it’s false. But once again, how are you supposed to argue for that? Even the influence of this failure on what the terms should mean is unclear.

Melancholic, you think back to your PhD in Theoretical Computer Science, where problems abided by the laws of Mathematics. It didn’t made them easier to solve, for sure, but it offered more systematic way to check solutions; better guarantees of correctness; and the near certainty that no one could take it away from you.

Maybe that’s were you went wrong: you didn’t make things formal from the start. No wonder you got nowhere.

So you go back to your notebook, but this time equations, formulas and graphs take most of the space.

It’s a Trap!

As a deconfusion researcher, and as part of a notoriously un-paradigmatic field lacking a clear formalization, I feel like that regularly. From where I come from, math just looks more like research and actually doing work, instead of simply talking about stuff. And there is definitely a lot of value in formalization and its use to unveil confusing parts of what we’re investigating.

What I object against is the (often unconscious) belief that only the formalization matters, and that we should go as fast as possible from the pre-formal state into real math. Thinking that way (as I’m wont to do) leads to problems described in this post: favoring an inaccurate formalization over the informal real deal (and forgetting the later), as well as misapplying standards from Mathematics to deconfusion.

This is probably not an issue for everyone (as I discuss in the last section on equal and opposite advice), but I believe it can serve to anyone who l...
Covid 8/5: Much Ado About Nothing
by Zvi — 2021-08-05T14:00:00.700Z

Getting into the weeds on the CDC’s new guidance and scaremongering, and the study they cited as justifications, caused this week’s post to get rather long. That was necessary, but if you don’t need the details, by all means skip the sections in question in favor of this summary: The CDC’s failure to apply Bayes’ rule, correct for base rates or locate sufficiently large or remotely representative samples knows few if any bounds, and their conclusions are still mostly the same conclusions my model had reached weeks ago. Very little has changed. Our new model of Delta is almost entirely the same as our old model of Delta.

The other big development is the continuing fights over the growing number of mask mandates and vaccine mandates, and the potential descent of our children into a potentially permanent ever present young adult dystopia. It seems the same kids that aren’t allowed to get vaccinated are at so much risk that parents are being told by health officials on CNN to mask up in their own homes.

Not Covid, but worth mentioning up top: The latest set of grant applications to the Survival and Flourishing Fund are due on August 23. If you have a long term future oriented organization, I’d urge you to consider applying, more details at the link or later in this post.

In other news, there’s a good righteous FDA Delenda Est rant from Scott Alexander, if you’d like one.

Cases followed their expected path, and deaths followed.

Let’s run the numbers.

The Numbers

Predictions

Prediction from last week: 610,000 cases (+55%) and 2,450 deaths (+20%).

Result: 589k cases (+50%) and 2,889 deaths (+41%).

Deaths still went up slower than cases or lagged cases, but it seems we can’t continuously get giant additional weekly declines in the CFR. Only predicting a 20% rise there seems overly optimistic in hindsight and I’m considering it a bad prediction on my part. From here it seems right to predict rises in death that are only slightly lower than the rise in cases lagged several weeks.

Prediction for next week: 855,000 cases (+45%) and 4,100 deaths (+40%).

I still do expect deaths to go up slightly less than cases, partly because there’s lag everywhere in the system, but I no longer expect the underlying ratios to change much going forward. Case growth should slow down as behaviors adjust, and there’s some chance at any time we hit the peak although I expect...
Two AI-risk-related game design ideas
by Daniel Kokotajlo — 2021-08-05T13:36:38.618Z

I have silly fantasies of these games becoming enormously successful and noticeably increasing AI risk awareness & preparedness. If you are inspired by these ideas and want to make something like them a reality, you have my encouragement & I would be excited to discuss.

AI Takeover RPG

Imagine we create source material for a role playing game. (Like Dungeons and Dragons) That is, we write out some basic rules, a bunch of backstory for world and the various non-player characters, some tips and instructions for the game master, etc. and we playtest it to make sure it typically leads to a fun experience for a group of friends over the course of an evening.

The setting of the game: A realistic-as-far-as-we-know depiction of the future during AI takeoff.

The players play as the AI, or a society of AIs in a single server perhaps. The game master controls the rest of the world, e.g. the corporation and scientists who built the AI, the politicians in Washington, etc.

The premise is that the AI is secretly unaligned and wants to take over the world and remake it according to its values. That's a fun premise in its own right, but it also allows for various interesting mechanics, representing the unique advantages AIs would have in this situation:

To represent speed intelligence, the AIs/players can pause the game at any time and discuss what to do at length, including asking questions to the GM about the backstory, etc. Depending on how fast they are running -- this will be a stat the game keeps track of -- they may be able to do things like "We do a year's worth of research and design a 3D-printable gun" in an in-game instant.
To represent quality intelligence, the AIs can "undo" things. Perhaps at first they aren't qualitatively more intelligent than humans and do not have access to this ability, but every time they "self-improve" they get an additional "undo whatever we just did" token. Thematically this represents using their superior judgment to predict that things would have gone badly, and not do it in the first place. They can use multiple tokens at once to "undo" all the way back to a significantly earlier point.
To represent situations in which there are multiple copies of the AI unable to communicate with each other, the GM takes some subset of the players into a different room and has each sub-team represent one of the copies (or groups of copies in

...
Why not more small, intense research teams?
by eg — 2021-08-05T11:57:35.516Z

Why are we not fostering more teams of say 2-5 people that
a) work full-time on the same or closely related problems
b) live together or very close
c) spend most of their work time collaborating in-person
?
I'm aware of student groups etc. but these fail both a) and c).
Plausibly this has advantages over both individuals (more perspectives, motivation, etc.) and larger orgs (tighter feedback loops and communication, more flexibility, much easier to hire, etc.).
Training Better Rationalists?
by Davis_Kingsley — 2021-08-05T11:13:16.743Z

I was recently listening to a podcast discussion that included two people that had been involved in military special operations units -- one in the Navy SEALs and one in the US Army Special Forces. I was struck by their extremely high level of training, dedication, commitment, and overall ability -- but also by also how this had in large part been squandered on fighting a destructive and unproductive war in Afghanistan, supporting questionable CIA operations, and so on.

It occurs to me that people in the rationalist community are at least notionally working on much more important causes, but with far less training, commitment, personal skill, etc.

This leads to my question -- what would it look like if similar levels of training effort, funding, selection, etc. were going into preparing rationalists to do as much good in the world as possible as is currently going into preparing elite military units? (I don't think that this would necessarily look much like elite military training, to be clear!)
If this first exercise comes up with anything that seems promising -- are there ways that we could potentially 80/20 this and get much of the goods without high costs?
(nb: this post is just personal musings and not "official" on behalf of CFAR or any other organization.)
Sunzi's《Methods of War》- Potential
by lsusr — 2021-08-05T05:29:20.909Z

This is a translation of Chapter 5 of The Art of War by Sunzi. No English sources were used.

孙子曰：凡治众如治寡，分数是也；斗众如斗寡，形名是也；三军之众，可使必受敌而无败者，奇正是也；兵之所加，如以碫投卵者，虚实是也。

To command the many as if commanding the few; to combat the many as if combating the few; the three armies can receive enemy attacks without being defeated, can attack like a stone thrown at an egg.

凡战者，以正合，以奇胜。故善出奇者，无穷如天地，不竭如江海。终而复始，日月是也。死而更生，四时是也。声不过五，五声之变，不可胜听也；色不过五，五色之变，不可胜观也；味不过五，五味之变，不可胜尝也；战势不过奇正，奇正之变，不可胜穷也。奇正相生，如循环之无端，孰能穷之哉！

Conventional combat achieves typical results. Invent surprises to achieve victory. Elite soldiers have the creativity of Heaven and Earth, the tirelessness of a river flowing into the sea. They finish and start again like the sun and the moon. They die and are reborn like the four seasons.

From the arrangements of five[1] musical notes can be heard infinite sounds. From the arrangements of five colors can be seen infinite colors. From the arrangements of five flavors can be tasted infinite flavors.

The use of military power is limited to invention and convention. From convention and invention can be arranged infinite strategies.

激水之疾，至于漂石者，势也；鸷鸟之疾，至于毁折者，节也。故善战者，其势险，其节短。势如彍弩，节如发机。

Turbulent water can move a boulder in one swift impulse. A raptor can kill its prey in one swift swoop. The skilled at war create precarious tension and abrupt release like the rhythm of the bolt(s) fed through a repeating crossbow.

纷纷纭纭，斗乱而不可乱；浑浑沌沌，形圆而不可败。乱生于治，怯生于勇，弱生于强。治乱，数也；勇怯，势也；强弱，形也。

Though the battlefield is chaotic, your command structure must be in order.

Numbers: one side is in chaos = the other side is ordered

Potential: one side is cowardly = the other side is brave

Form: one side is weak = the other side is strong

故善动敌者，形之，敌必从之；予之，敌必取之。以利动之，以卒待之。

Those skilled at war move the enemy via the situation, the enemy follows the situation; provide bait, the enemy will seize it. Do not let your own troops be so moved.

故善战者，求之于势，不责于人故能择人而任势。任势者，其战人也，如转木石。木石之性，安则静，危则动，方则止，圆则行。

Those skilled at war seek out potential by placing the right talent in the right circumstances like placing wood and stone. Wood and stone stand still on flat terrain, rolls down steep terrain. A square is easy to stand still. A round shape is easy to roll.

故善战人之势，如转圆石于千仞之山者，势也。

To command troops as if rolling a round stone down a 10,000-foot mountain. This is called "potential".

"Five musical notes" refers

...
How to get mRNA after J&J
by jefftk — 2021-08-05T01:50:03.741Z

The viral
vector vaccines (J&J,
AstraZeneca)
are much better than nothing, even against Delta. But they're also
substantially worse than what you get from the mRNA
ones (Pfizer
and Moderna),
especially the single-shot J&J (study,
NYT).
People who got J&J could likely
benefit from an mRNA shot, and while the CDC has not
recommended it some places like SF
General Hospital are offering supplemental doses.

One of my housemates had received J&J and decided to get a
supplemental mRNA shot. Here's what worked for them:

Got to the nearest CVS.

Ask what vaccine they have; if they only have J&J, try
somewhere else.

Say yes when they verify that this is your first shot.

CVS asked for their name and birthdate, which they gave, but they
weren't asked for ID or insurance. Possibly if you are you would need to
decline?

This requires lying to the pharmacy, never something to take lightly,
and there could potentially be negative medical/legal/financial
consequences, but with the information we currently have it seems like
something to consider.
What do we know about vaccinating children?
by Gunnar_Zarncke — 2021-08-04T23:57:15.399Z

In Germany, the BioNTech vaccine has been approved for children:

At the end of May, the Comirnaty mRNA vaccine developed by BioNTech / Pfizer was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as the first COVID-19 vaccine in this age group for children and adolescents aged 12 and over. -- Robert Koch Institute

But it is still not generally recommended for this age group:

There is currently no general vaccination recommendation of the STIKO for children and adolescents from 12 to 17
Years, but only for children and teens with a specific risk. -- STIKO informational material Robert Koch Institute

I have four generally healthy boys aged 10 to 17. Only the oldest is already vaccinated, being basically an adult. I am inclined to get them all vaccinated with BioNTech because the risk-benefit tradeoff with such a safe vaccine seems obvious.

For a cautious view of the risks, see e.g. this LessWong post:

conditional on a kid catching COVID, ... a ~2% chance of a miserable months-long ordeal until they recover, plus (overlapping) ~1% chance of a big-deal long-term latent problem ... -- Young kids catching COVID: how much to worry?

Nature has an article about the general topic:

Thus far, the vaccines seem to be safe in adolescents1... A potential link between the Pfizer vaccine and heart inflammation ... the risk of these conditions is ... about 67 cases per million second doses in adolescent males aged 12–17, and 9 per million in adolescent females in the same age group. -- Should children get COVID vaccines? What the science says

So my question is: What else do we know about the risk-benefit trade-off of vaccines for children? When and based on what criteria should children get vaccinated? What other considerations should be taken into account (the nature article mentioned fairness, for example)?
Should doctors be neutral? 
by Swimmer963 (Miranda Dixon-Luinenburg)  — 2021-08-04T20:37:54.179Z

Medical professionals providing humanitarian aid are divided over whether to hold to medical confidentiality and political neutrality or to speak out about the atrocities they witness.

[Note: this is not written as a typical Lesswrong post, and was part of a challenge to write something in the style of a journalist article.]

Along with all the many challenges of aid work, from lack of funding and supplies, to directly putting themselves in the line of violence, medical providers responding to humanitarian crises are often faced with an agonizing dilemma. On the one hand, they often witness terrible atrocities, where publicly speaking up is necessary to address the root causes and hold governments accountable for their actions. On the other hand, remaining silent and neutral can be the only way to stay in regions with ongoing humanitarian crises.

Can an organization ostensibly focused on medical work, staffed by doctors and nurses, carry out political advocacy anywhere near as effectively as a group specialized in it? Perhaps more importantly, can they do so without compromising on treating those most in need?

Doctors Without Borders, a major humanitarian medical relief organization, has faced this choice over and over,

often resulting in controversy

. They were at one point accused of being manipulated by the CIA. Aid workers were murdered in Afghanistan. Over the last five decades, they have debated – and even schismed over – this question, but not yet answered it.

A brief history of Doctors Without Borders

In 1968, a small team of doctors volunteered with the Red Cross – despite its name, not a medical organization – to provide medical care during a war and famine in Nigeria. The experience was horrifying; emergency medicine couldn’t save people starving due to military blockades of food shipments, and the hospitals where they performed emergency trauma surgery were frequently targeted by the Nigerian military forces. They believed that political action was necessary in order to address the humanitarian crisis, and came to see the Red Cross’s commitment to neutrality and required oath of discretion as complicit. They openly criticized the Nigerian government, as well as the Red Cross for its handling of the situation. Three years later, these doctors joined the founding team of ‘Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), or Doctors Without Bord...
Value loading in the human brain: a worked example
by Steven Byrnes — 2021-08-04T17:20:06.195Z

UPDATE MARCH 2022: I later revised and improved this post—see [Intro to brain-like-AGI safety] 7. From hardcoded drives to foresighted plans: A worked example. I’m leaving this old version here, but I strongly suggest you click over to the later version instead. Goodbye!

We start out as infants knowing nothing of the world. Then many years later, we have various complex conscious explicit goals, like “I want to get out of debt”, and we take foresighted action in pursuit of those goals. What algorithms can get us from here to there? In this post I’m going to work through an example. To summarize and simplify a bit, the steps will be:

We gradually develop a probabilistic generative model of the world and ourselves;
There’s a “credit assignment” process, where something in the world-model gets flagged as “good”;
There’s a reward prediction error signal roughly related to the time-derivative of the expected probability of the “good” thing. This signal drives us to “try” to make the “good” thing happen, including via foresighted planning.

To make things a bit simpler, I won’t talk about “I want to get out of debt” here. I’ll do a simpler example instead. Let’s say (purely hypothetically… 👀) that I ate a slice of

prinsesstårta

cake a couple years ago, and it was really yummy, and ever since then I’ve wanted to eat one again.

So my running example of an explicit goal in this post will be “I want a slice of

prinsesstårta

”.

It’s not my only goal in life, or even a particularly important one—so it has to trade off against my other goals and desires—but it is nevertheless a goal of mine (at least when I’m thinking about it), and I would indeed make complicated foresighted plans to try bring about that goal, like dropping subtle hints to my family … in blog posts … when my birthday is coming up. Purely hypothetically!!

Big-picture context: As in most of my posts, the subtext is that researchers may someday make AGI algorithms that resemble human brain algorithms—after all, loads of people in neuroscience and AI are trying to do exactly that as we speak. And if those researchers successfully do that, then we’ll want to have a good understanding of how (and indeed whether) we can sculpt those AGIs’ motivations such that the AGIs are robustly trying to do the things we want them to be trying to do. I don't know the answer to that question, and nobody else does either. But one rel...