trentmkelly/LessWrong-43k huggingface dataset:
Checklist of Rationality Habits
by AnnaSalamon — 2012-11-07T21:19:19.244Z

As you may know, the Center for Applied Rationality has run several workshops, each teaching content similar to that in the core sequences, but made more practical, and more into fine-grained habits.

Below is the checklist of rationality habits we have been using in the minicamps' opening session. It was co-written by Eliezer, myself, and a number of others at CFAR. As mentioned below, the goal is not to assess how "rational" you are, but, rather, to develop a personal shopping list of habits to consider developing. We generated it by asking ourselves, not what rationality content it's useful to understand, but what rationality-related actions (or thinking habits) it's useful to actually do.

I hope you find it useful; I certainly have. Comments and suggestions are most welcome; it remains a work in progress. (It's also available as a pdf.)

---

This checklist is meant for your personal use so you can have a wish-list of rationality habits, and so that you can see if you're acquiring good habits over the next year—it's not meant to be a way to get a 'how rational are you?' score, but, rather, a way to notice specific habits you might want to develop. For each item, you might ask yourself: did you last use this habit...

Never

Today/yesterday

Last week

Last month

Last year

Before the last year

Reacting to evidence / surprises / arguments you haven't heard before; flagging beliefs for examination.

When I see something odd - something that doesn't fit with what I'd ordinarily expect, given my other beliefs - I successfully notice, promote it to conscious attention and think "I notice that I am confused" or some equivalent thereof. (Example: You think that your flight is scheduled to depart on Thursday. On Tuesday, you get an email from Travelocity advising you to prepare for your flight “tomorrow”, which seems wrong. Do you successfully raise this anomaly to the level of conscious attention? (Based on the experience of an actual LWer who failed to notice confusion at this point and missed their plane flight.)

When somebody says something that isn't quite clear enough for me to visualize, I notice this and ask for examples. (Recent example from Eliezer: A mathematics student said they were studying "stacks". I asked for an example of a stack. They said that the integers could form a stack.

...
Meetup :St.Louis MO: Psycology of memorization, Thiel Fellow James Koppel, and games
by beoShaffer — 2012-11-07T19:26:31.047Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Psycology of memorization, Thiel Fellow James Koppel, and games

WHEN: 24 November 2012 02:30:00PM (-0600)

WHERE: St.Louis Mo, Kaldi's Coffee Clayton branch

I'm planing to do a presentation with optional exercises on the psychology of memorization with an emphasis on learning names. I plan on focusing on techniques that haven't already received much attention on Less Wrong, but will have materiel on things like SRS prepared in case anyone isn't already familiar with them.
Also, if you'd like to talk to Thiel Fellow and Singularity summit speaker James Koppel now's your chance. He's told me that will be attending, and since he no longer lives in the St.Louis area you might not get another chance.

I'll also be bringing some games for anyone who wants to stick around after the presentation. Feel free to bring some of your own.

cross-posted from Less Wrong

-edited for writing style and updated location

cross-posted from http://www.meetup.com/lesswrong/

Discussion article for the meetup : Psycology of memorization, Thiel Fellow James Koppel, and games
Meetup : Meetup, Champaign IL, 
by aspera — 2012-11-07T17:38:26.309Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Meetup, Champaign IL,

WHEN:
14 November 2012 07:00:00PM (-0600)

WHERE:
Cafe Paradiso,	801 South Lincoln Avenue Urbana, IL 61801

Let's get together on Wednesday the 14th of November at 7pm at Cafe Paradiso.

Last time we talked about wanting to discuss specific topics at the meetings, and we decided that we're going to start with Consequentialism.

So try to read a little bit about it before next time. Possibilities include:

Wikipedia

Check Consequentialism on LessWrong

Consequentialism FAQ

Consequentialism Need Not Be Nearsighted

Also, think about any topics you'd be interested in eventually presenting to the rest of us. You don't need to be an expert: just interested. It can be LW related or not.

See you then.

Discussion article for the meetup : Meetup, Champaign IL,
AI risk-related improvements to the LW wiki
by Kaj_Sotala — 2012-11-07T09:24:05.070Z

Back in May, Luke suggested the creation of a scholarly AI risk wiki, which was to include a large set of summary articles on topics related to AI risk, mapped out in terms of how they related to the central debates about AI risk. In response, Wei Dai suggested that among other things, the existing Less Wrong wiki could be improved instead. As a result, the Singularity Institute has massively improved the LW wiki, in preparation for a more ambitious scholarly AI risk wiki. The outcome was the creation or dramatic expansion of the following articles:

5-and-10

Acausal Trade

Acceleration thesis

Agent

AGI chaining

AGI skepticism

AGI Sputnik moment

AI advantages

AI arms race

AI Boxing

AI-complete

AI takeoff

AIXI

Algorithmic complexity

Anvil problem

Astronomical waste

Bayesian decision theory

Benevolence

Ben Goertzel

Bias

Biological Cognitive Enhancement

Brain-computer interfaces

Carl Shulman

Causal decision theory

Church-Turing thesis

Coherent Aggregated Volition

Coherent Blended Volition

Coherent Extrapolated Volition

Computing overhang

Computronium

Consequentialism

Counterfactual mugging

Creating Friendly AI

Cyc

Decision theory

Differential intellectual progress

Economic consequences of AI and whole brain emulation

Eliezer Yudkowsky

Empathic inference

Emulation argument for human-level AI

EURISKO

Event horizon thesis

Evidential Decision Theory

Evolutionary algorithm

Evolutionary argument for human-level AI

Existential risk

Expected utility

Expected value

Extensibility argument for greater-than-human intelligence

FAI-complete

Fallacy

Fragility_of_value

Friendly AI

Fun Theory

Future of Humanity Institute

Game theory

Gödel machine

Great Filter

History of AI risk thought

Human-AGI integration and trade

Induction

Infinities in ethics

Information hazard

Instrumental convergence thesis

Intelligence

Intelligence explosion

Jeeves Problem

Lifespan dilemma

Machine ethics

Machine learning

Malthusian Scenarios

Metaethics

Moore's law

Moral divergence

Moral uncertainty

Nanny AI

Nanotechnology

Neuromorphic AI

Nick Bostrom

Nonperson predicate

Observation selection effect

Ontological crisis

Optimal philanthropy

Optimization power

Optimization process

Oracle AI

Orthogonality thesis

Paperclip maximizer

Pascal's mugging

Prediction market

Preference

Prior probability

Probability theory

Recursive self-improvement

Reflective decision theory

Regulation and AI risk

Reinforcement l

...
[SEQ RERUN] Abstraction, Not Analogy
by MinibearRex — 2012-11-07T08:03:59.499Z

Today's post, Abstraction, Not Analogy was originally published on November 19, 2008. A summary:

Describing certain arguments as analogies misses much of the point of those arguments. In order to generate predictions, we often ignore certain information in favor of more relevant information. These sorts of abstractions succeed or fail based on whether or not they successfully capture the important details.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).
This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. This post is the first official post in the rerun of the AI-FOOM Debate. The previous post was A Few Background Posts by Robin Hanson, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.
Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.
Rationality Quotes November 2012
by  — 2012-11-06T22:38:36.144Z

Here's the new thread for posting quotes, with the usual rules:

Please post all quotes separately, so that they can be voted up/down separately. (If they are strongly related, reply to your own comments. If strongly ordered, then go ahead and post them together.)

Do not quote yourself

Do not quote comments/posts on LW/OB

No more than 5 quotes per person per monthly thread, please.
[LINK] TEDx "When creative machines overtake man"
by Kawoomba — 2012-11-06T18:03:01.837Z

Video here, illustrated transcript here.

Contains a good sketch of Schmidhuber's Formal Theory of Fun and Creativity.

One TEDx passage in particular stuck with me, quoted with context:

In a few decades, such [creative] machines will have more computational power than human brains.

This will have consequences. My kids were born around 2000. The insurance mathematicians say they are expected to see the year 2100, because they are girls.

A substantial fraction of their lives will be spent in a world where the smartest things are not humans, but the artificial brains of an emerging robot civilization, which presumably will spread throughout the solar system and beyond (space is hostile to humans but nice to robots).

This will change everything much more than, say, global warming, etc. But hardly any politician is aware of this development happening before our eyes. Like the water lilies which every day cover twice as much of the pond, but get noticed only a few days before the pond is full.

My final advice: don't think of us, the humans, versus them, those future uber-robots. Instead view yourself, and humankind in general, as a stepping stone (not the last one) on the path of the universe towards more and more unfathomable complexity. Be content with that little role in the grand scheme of things.
Gauging interest for a Rio de Janeiro meetup group. 
by roland — 2012-11-06T11:33:32.960Z

Who would be interested? Please reply to this thread or msg in private.

Thanks!

Edit: It's Rio de Janeiro, RJ, in Brazil.

It seems it is going to happen, discussion also on fb now:

http://www.facebook.com/Ierfh/posts/108940625936257?comment_id=28607&ref=notif¬if_t=comment_mention

Ok, the meetup will happen, here is the link: http://lesswrong.com/meetups/fp
Meetup :  Moscow: Applied Rationality and Cognitive Biases
by Yuu — 2012-11-06T07:51:36.429Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow: Applied Rationality and Cognitive Biases

WHEN:
17 November 2012 04:00:00PM (+0400)

WHERE:
Rossiya, Moscow, ulitsa Ostozhenka 14/2

We will meet at “Subway” restaurant, entrance from Lopukhinskiy pereulok. Look for a table with “LW” banner, I will be there from 16:00 MSK.

Main topics:

Applied rationality: practice. We will improve our rationality skills.

Cognitive biases analysis. Here is the link to the list of biases we will work on (in Russian).

If you are going for the first time, please fill this one minute form (in Russian), to share your contact information. You can also use personal messages here, or drop a message at lw@lesswrong.ru to contact me for any reason.

N. B. Google shows incorrect location, please use Yandex maps.

Discussion article for the meetup : Moscow: Applied Rationality and Cognitive Biases
Meetup : West LA Meetup - Fun Theory
by  — 2012-11-06T05:28:16.489Z

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup - Fun Theory

WHEN:
07 November 2012 07:00:00PM (-0800)

WHERE:
10850 West Pico Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064

When: 7:00pm Wednesday, November 7th.

Where: The Westside Tavern in the upstairs Wine Bar (all ages welcome), located inside the Westside Pavillion on the second floor, right by the movie theaters. The entrance sign says "Lounge".

Parking is free for 3 hours.

Discussion Topic: This week, let's have a serious talk about fun. I'm talking about fun theory. While this set of topics leaves lots of room for wandering, there will be some specific discussion goals for the night. Until then, enjoy some of the relevant articles!

There will be general discussion too, and there are lots of interesting recent posts (also check out LW's sister site, Overcoming Bias ). But don't worry if you don't have time to read any articles, or even if you've never read any Less Wrong! Bring a friend! The atmosphere is casual, and good, intelligent conversation with friendly people is guaranteed.

I will bring a whiteboard with Bayes' Theorem written on it.

Discussion article for the meetup : West LA Meetup - Fun Theory
[SEQ RERUN] A Few Background Posts by Robin Hanson
by MinibearRex — 2012-11-06T05:10:46.923Z

I've held off on posting the next rerun for a few days in case anybody else suggested something new in the discussion of how to run the AI FOOM Debate. After looking at the comments (with associated votes), and after looking through the sequence myself, I've decided to rerun one post a day. Most of these posts will be from Robin Hanson and Eliezer Yudkowsky, but there are a few posts from Carl Shulman and James Miller that will be included as well. This process will start tomorrow with "Abstraction, Not Analogy" by Robin Hanson.

Meanwhile, there are several posts written by Robin Hanson in the week or so leading up to the debate that provide a bit of background to his perspectives, which I have linked to below. They're all fairly short and relatively straightforward, so I don't think that they each merit a full blown individual discussion.

Fund UberTool?

Engelbart As UberTool?

Friendly Teams

Friendliness Factors

Setting the Stage
Meetup : Washington DC Show and tell meetup: Economics II
by rocurley — 2012-11-06T01:28:24.783Z

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC Show and tell meetup: Economics II

WHEN:
11 November 2012 03:00:00PM (-0500)

WHERE:
National Portrait Gallery Plaza, Washington, DC 20001, USA

This will be the second "Show and tell" meetup, again about economics.

Discussion article for the meetup : Washington DC Show and tell meetup: Economics II
Yes, Voting is Rational, So Please Go Vote!
by Peter Wildeford — 2012-11-05T05:35:55.862Z

Main Idea: Voting is rational because (1) the benefits of having your preferred candidate win might be enough to outweigh the chance you won't swing the election, (2) there are intangible benefits to voting besides swining the election, and (3) the collective action of nonvoters matters and could have swung elections.

~

Currently, about 58% of the voting age population actually vote, which in 2008 was 131 million people out of a possible 225 million people. What this means is that there were 94 million people who didn't vote in the last election despite being able to, and we can expect this election to be the same.

Is this a problem? Perhaps not. While compulsory voting has an interesting appeal, I generally think people should be free to decline to participate for whatever reason if they want to. Indeed, given people's overconfidence and under-informed approach to issues (for which I don't blame them and for which I am also at fault), many people may have a moral imperative to not vote.

All this aside, I want to tackle head on the pervailing view I've been seeing among many people, including myself, that "voting is irrational" because your vote doesn't really "count". As smart person Steven Levitt says:

Well, one good indicator of a person who’s not so smart is if they vote in a presidential election because they think their vote might actually decide which candidate wins... there has never been and there never will be a vote cast in a presidential election that could possibly be decisive.

So this leads me to wonder is voting rational? Are there good reasons to vote? In this essay, I want to reverse the argument I used to buy, change my mind, and answer with a resounding yes. Voting is rational, there are good reasons to vote, and you really should go out and vote if you can.

The Voter's Lottery: Swinging the Vote

In the paper "What is the Probability Your Vote Will Make a Difference?" [PDF], authors Andrew Gelman, Nate Silver, and Aaron Eldin concluded that if you're voting in New Mexico, New Hampshire, Virginia, or Colorado, your vote would have about a 1 in 10 million chance of being the deciding vote in the election. The average state has a chance of 1 in 1 billion. For ll states except DC, your chance will have an upper bound of 1 in 100 billion. For DC voters, i...
Does My Vote Matter?
by orthonormal — 2012-11-05T01:23:52.009Z

(Cross-posted from elsewhere; I thought some readers here might like it too. Please excuse the unusually informal style.)

Short answer: Actually, yes!

Slightly longer answer: Yes, if the election is close. You'll never get to know that your vote was decisive, but one vote can substantially change the odds on Election Day nonetheless. Even if the election is a foregone conclusion (or if you don't care about the major candidates), the same reasoning applies to third parties- there are thresholds that really matter to them, and if they reach those now they have a significantly better chance in the next election. And finally, local elections matter in the long run just as state or nation elections do. So, in most cases, voting is rational if you care about the outcome.

Full answer: Welcome! This is a nonpartisan analysis, written by a math PhD, of when and how a single vote matters in a large election. I've got a table of contents below; please skip to whatever section interests you most. And feel free to share this!

Sections:

1. How can a single vote matter in a huge election?

2. What if I know it's not going to be close?

3. Do local elections matter?

In what follows, I'm going to be assuming an American-style voting system (first-past-the-post, for you voting-system buffs), but most of what I say carries over to other voting systems found around the world.

1. How can a single vote matter in a huge election?

To answer this, let's imagine a different voting system. In the land of Erewhon, voters cast their ballots for president just as they do here; but instead of decreeing that the candidate with the most votes is the winner, each vote is turned into a lottery ball, and one is chosen at random to determine the next president.

While this system has its drawbacks (they get fringe candidates elected every so often, and they've had to outlaw write-in campaigns to prevent every voter from simply voting themselves in), the citizens of Erewhon agree on its main advantage: every one of them knows that their vote counts, that they increase the chance of their candidate winning by just that much.

I'm going to argue that if you would bother to vote if an election were held in Erewhon, then you should also vote—for the same reason—if the same election were held the normal way, and if it looked like the outcome might be close. That is, your effect on the outcome is about eq...
Voting is like donating thousands of dollars to charity
by Academian — 2012-11-05T01:02:37.308Z

Summary: People often say that voting is irrational, because the probability of affecting the outcome is so small. But the outcome itself is extremely large when you consider its impact on other people. I estimate that for most people, voting is worth a charitable donation of somewhere between $100 and $1.5 million. For me, the value came out to around $56,000. So I figure something on the order of $1000 is a reasonable evaluation (after all, I'm writing this post because the number turned out to be large according to this method, so regression to the mean suggests I err on the conservative side), and that's be enough to make me do it.

Moreover, in swing states the value is much higher, so taking a 10% chance at convincing a friend in a swing state to vote similarly to you is probably worth thousands of expected donation dollars, too.

I find this much more compelling than the typical attempts to justify voting purely in terms of signal value or the resulting sense of pride in fulfilling a civic duty. And voting for selfish reasons is still almost completely worthless, in terms of direct effect. If you're on the way to the polls only to vote for the party that will benefit you the most, you're better off using that time to earn $5 mowing someone's lawn. But if you're even a little altruistic... vote away!

Time for a Fermi estimate

Below is an example Fermi calculation for the value of voting in the USA. Of course, the estimates are all rough and fuzzy, so I'll be conservative, and we can adjust upward based on your opinion.

I'll be estimating the value of voting in marginal expected altruistic dollars, the expected number of dollars being spent in a way that is in line with your altruistic preferences.1 If you don't like measuring the altruistic value of the outcome in dollars, please consider making up your own measure, and keep reading. Perhaps use the number of smiles per year, or number of lives saved. Your measure doesn't have to be total or average utilitarian, either; as long as it's roughly commensurate with the size of the country, it will lead you to a similar conclusion in terms of orders of magnitude.

Component estimates:

At least 1/(100 million) = probability estimate that my vote would affect the outcome. This is the most interesting thing to estimate. There are approximately 100 million voters in the USA, and if you assume a naive fair...
NYC Winter Megameetup, Event RSVPs
by Raemon — 2012-11-04T19:12:07.876Z

I've just posted two facebook events for The Winter Solstice Megameetup, the weekend of December 15th-16th.

One is for the Solstice Celebration - a Saturday night of ritual, song, stories and dance, catering to both Less Wrong-folk as well as other anyone with rational/humanist/futurist worldview they want to celebrate.

The second is the official Less Wrong Winter Megameetup, a Sunday afternoon of mingling and conversations with interesting aspiring rationalists. While there will not be a primary public discussion, people are encouraged to come with ideas about their goals for the next year. Take an opportunity to get a lot of feedback from smart, interesting people, many of whom have tackled some big projects and life changes in the past.

Both events are potluck - bring some great food to share with great people.

People from out of state attending both events are welcome to stay the night at Winterfell House. (You are advised to bring a sleeping bag - there is plenty of floor space but may not be enough mattresses for everyone)

If you have facebook, you're encouraged to RSVP on the events so we have as accurate a headcount as possible. If not, and you haven't already indicated you're coming, please reply here to let us know which day(s) you're coming.